In the Interest of J. R. P. and J. R. P., Children

Court of Appeals of Georgia

In the Interest of J. R. P. and J. R. P., Children

DecidedSeptember 21, 2015

DocketA16D0011

StatusPublished

This text of In the Interest of J. R. P. and J. R. P., Children (In the Interest of J. R. P. and J. R. P., Children) 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 J. R. P. and J. R. P., Children, (Ga. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ September 16, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16D0011. IN THE INTEREST OF J. R. P. AND J. R. P., CHILDREN.

In this child dependency matter, former foster parent Tracy McAteer filed a motion to intervene. The trial court denied the motion, and McAteer filed this application for discretionary appeal. We lack jurisdiction. The denial of a motion to intervene is not a final, directly appealable order. See Davis v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 285 Ga. 22, 23 (673 SE2d 221) (2009); Morman v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, 198 Ga. App. 544 (402 SE2d 320) (1991). Accordingly, McAteer was required to follow the interlocutory application procedures set forth in OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), which include obtaining a certificate of immediate review from the trial court, to obtain appellate review at this time. See Murphy v. Murphy, 322 Ga. App. 829 (747 SE2d 21) (2013) (dismissing appeal from recusal order based on failure to follow the interlocutory appeal procedure). Although McAteer filed an application for discretionary appeal pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-35, compliance with that procedure does not excuse a party seeking appellate review of an interlocutory order from complying with the additional requirements of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). See Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832 (471 SE2d 213) (1996). McAteer’s failure to comply with the interlocutory appeal procedures deprives us of jurisdiction over this application, which is hereby DISMISSED. Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia 09/16/2015 Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

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

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ September 16, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16D0011. IN THE INTEREST OF J. R. P. AND J. R. P., CHILDREN.

In this child dependency matter, former foster parent Tracy McAteer filed a motion to intervene. The trial court denied the motion, and McAteer filed this application for discretionary appeal. We lack jurisdiction. The denial of a motion to intervene is not a final, directly appealable order. See Davis v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 285 Ga. 22, 23 (673 SE2d 221) (2009); Morman v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, 198 Ga. App. 544 (402 SE2d 320) (1991). Accordingly, McAteer was required to follow the interlocutory application procedures set forth in OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), which include obtaining a certificate of immediate review from the trial court, to obtain appellate review at this time. See Murphy v. Murphy, 322 Ga. App. 829 (747 SE2d 21) (2013) (dismissing appeal from recusal order based on failure to follow the interlocutory appeal procedure). Although McAteer filed an application for discretionary appeal pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-35, compliance with that procedure does not excuse a party seeking appellate review of an interlocutory order from complying with the additional requirements of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). See Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832 (471 SE2d 213) (1996). McAteer’s failure to comply with the interlocutory appeal procedures deprives us of jurisdiction over this application, which is hereby DISMISSED. Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia 09/16/2015 Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

In the Interest of J. R. P. and J. R. P., Children, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-j-r-p-and-j-r-p-children-gactapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack