In the INTEREST OF E. N., a Child.
This text of 806 S.E.2d 630 (In the INTEREST OF E. N., a Child.) 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.
Opinion
*178 The mother of E. N. appeals the juvenile court order denying her motion for the return of E. N.'s custody. We conclude that the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the issue of custody. We therefore vacate the order and remand the case to the juvenile court for entry of an order dismissing the motion.
E. N. was removed from his home and his parents' custody, and the juvenile court found him to be dependent due to the mother's mental illness. While the dependency proceedings were pending, the father filed for divorce in superior court. The superior court referred the custody issue to the juvenile *631 court, which ultimately recommended that physical and legal custody be awarded to the father. The *179 superior court adopted the recommendation and awarded custody to the father. The mother did not appeal that order.
The mother filed the instant motion in the dependency proceeding seeking to have the custody of E. N. returned to her and seeking a ruling that E. N. is no longer dependent as to the mother. The juvenile court conducted a hearing on the motion and denied it. The mother filed this appeal.
Under OCGA § 15-11-10 (1) (C), a juvenile court is granted exclusive original jurisdiction over an action in which a child "[i]s alleged to be a dependent child[.]" In such actions, the juvenile court may award temporary custody of a child who is adjudicated dependent.
Ertter v. Dunbar,
In this case, the record contains
no order of the superior court transferring the [motion for return of custody] to the juvenile court ..., and the jurisdiction obtained during the divorce action could not serve to retain such jurisdiction. ... Clearly, the juvenile court, without a proper transfer from the superior court which has not been shown here, was without authority to modify the custody provisions of the final divorce decree.
Owen v. Owen
,
Judgment vacated and case remanded .
Branch and Bethel, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
806 S.E.2d 630, 343 Ga. App. 178, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-e-n-a-child-gactapp-2017.