In the Interest of C. A. G.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

In the Interest of C. A. G.

236 S.E.2d 171, 142 Ga. App. 480, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 1661

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 31, 1977

Docket53870

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 236 S.E.2d 171 (In the Interest of C. A. G.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In the Interest of C. A. G., 236 S.E.2d 171, 142 Ga. App. 480, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 1661 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Marshall, Judge.

That portion of the juvenile court’s order (following the finding that the juvenile is a delinquent child and the order committing him to the Georgia Department of Human Resources, "Division of Youth Services” (Division for Children & Youth 1 )) which provides, "It appearing that the child has a drug problem which has not been specifically treated, it is further ordered that the Georgia Department of Human Resources, Division of Youth Services [sic] shall provide an extensive drug treatment program for this child as a part of its rehabilitative services while said child is under commitment to said Department” — is merely exhortatory, and not binding on *481 the Division for Children & Youth. In the Interest of: R. D., 141 Ga. App. 843.

Submitted May 4, 1977 Decided May 31, 1977. Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, Carol Atha Cosgrove, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant. James R. Jester, Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, George Geiger, R. David Petersen, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.

While we are sympathetic to the commendable desire of the juvenile court to ensure that the division would provide treatment for an alleged drug problem which the court thought and found had not been specifically treated while the juvenile was in the previous custody of the department and the division, nevertheless, as we have held in In the Interest of: R. D., supra, the only statutory means for the court to retain control over the disposition of the juvenile delinquent was as provided by Code Ann. § 24A-2302 (b) or (c) (Ga. L. 1971, pp. 709, 735; 1973, pp. 579, 580).

Accordingly, the order appealed from is affirmed with direction that the objectionable provision therein be either deleted or changed to the form of a mere recommendation to the division.

Judgment affirmed with direction.

Deen, P. J., and Webb, J., concur.

1

In the Interest of: R. D., 141 Ga. App. 843 (fn. 1).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Marshall, Judge.

That portion of the juvenile court’s order (following the finding that the juvenile is a delinquent child and the order committing him to the Georgia Department of Human Resources, "Division of Youth Services” (Division for Children & Youth 1 )) which provides, "It appearing that the child has a drug problem which has not been specifically treated, it is further ordered that the Georgia Department of Human Resources, Division of Youth Services [sic] shall provide an extensive drug treatment program for this child as a part of its rehabilitative services while said child is under commitment to said Department” — is merely exhortatory, and not binding on *481 the Division for Children & Youth. In the Interest of: R. D., 141 Ga. App. 843.

Submitted May 4, 1977 Decided May 31, 1977. Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, Carol Atha Cosgrove, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant. James R. Jester, Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, George Geiger, R. David Petersen, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.

While we are sympathetic to the commendable desire of the juvenile court to ensure that the division would provide treatment for an alleged drug problem which the court thought and found had not been specifically treated while the juvenile was in the previous custody of the department and the division, nevertheless, as we have held in In the Interest of: R. D., supra, the only statutory means for the court to retain control over the disposition of the juvenile delinquent was as provided by Code Ann. § 24A-2302 (b) or (c) (Ga. L. 1971, pp. 709, 735; 1973, pp. 579, 580).

Accordingly, the order appealed from is affirmed with direction that the objectionable provision therein be either deleted or changed to the form of a mere recommendation to the division.

Judgment affirmed with direction.

Deen, P. J., and Webb, J., concur.

1

In the Interest of: R. D., 141 Ga. App. 843 (fn. 1).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 S.E.2d 171, 142 Ga. App. 480, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 1661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-c-a-g-gactapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack