In the Interest of K. T., Children (Mother)

Court of Appeals of Georgia

In the Interest of K. T., Children (Mother)

DecidedAugust 21, 2019

DocketA19A2479

StatusPublished

This text of In the Interest of K. T., Children (Mother) (In the Interest of K. T., Children (Mother)) 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 K. T., Children (Mother), (Ga. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ August 14, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A2479. IN THE INTEREST OF K. T. et al., CHILDREN (MOTHER).

The children’s biological mother in this dependency proceeding filed this direct appeal, seeking review of the juvenile court’s order granting a motion to intervene filed by the children’s foster parents. We lack jurisdiction. “Generally, an order is final and appealable when it leaves no issues remaining to be resolved, constitutes the court’s final ruling on the merits of the action, and leaves the parties with no further recourse in the trial court.” Thomas v. Douglas County, 217 Ga. App. 520, 522 (1) (457 SE2d 835) (1995); see also OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1). Here, the order granting the foster parents’ motion to intervene did not resolve all issues in this case, which remains pending before the juvenile court. See CitiFinancial Svcs., Inc. v. Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480, 481 (713 SE2d 678) (2011). The biological mother therefore was required to use the interlocutory appeal procedures – including obtaining a certificate of immediate review from the juvenile court – to appeal the juvenile court’s order. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Miller v. Miller, 282 Ga. 164, 164-165 (646 SE2d 469) (2007); CitiFinancial Svcs., Inc., 310 Ga. App. at 481; accord O’Brien v. Builders Ins., 350 Ga. App. 77, 77 (1) (827 SE2d 917) (2019); Murphy v. McCarthy, 201 Ga. App. 101, 101 (410 SE2d 198) (1991); Dept. of Human Resources v. Ledbetter, 153 Ga. App. 416, 417 (265 SE2d 337) (1980). The biological mother’s failure to do so deprives us of jurisdiction over this direct appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED. See Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 833 (471 SE2d 213) (1996).

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 08/14/2019 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,____________________ August 14, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A2479. IN THE INTEREST OF K. T. et al., CHILDREN (MOTHER).

The children’s biological mother in this dependency proceeding filed this direct appeal, seeking review of the juvenile court’s order granting a motion to intervene filed by the children’s foster parents. We lack jurisdiction. “Generally, an order is final and appealable when it leaves no issues remaining to be resolved, constitutes the court’s final ruling on the merits of the action, and leaves the parties with no further recourse in the trial court.” Thomas v. Douglas County, 217 Ga. App. 520, 522 (1) (457 SE2d 835) (1995); see also OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1). Here, the order granting the foster parents’ motion to intervene did not resolve all issues in this case, which remains pending before the juvenile court. See CitiFinancial Svcs., Inc. v. Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480, 481 (713 SE2d 678) (2011). The biological mother therefore was required to use the interlocutory appeal procedures – including obtaining a certificate of immediate review from the juvenile court – to appeal the juvenile court’s order. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Miller v. Miller, 282 Ga. 164, 164-165 (646 SE2d 469) (2007); CitiFinancial Svcs., Inc., 310 Ga. App. at 481; accord O’Brien v. Builders Ins., 350 Ga. App. 77, 77 (1) (827 SE2d 917) (2019); Murphy v. McCarthy, 201 Ga. App. 101, 101 (410 SE2d 198) (1991); Dept. of Human Resources v. Ledbetter, 153 Ga. App. 416, 417 (265 SE2d 337) (1980). The biological mother’s failure to do so deprives us of jurisdiction over this direct appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED. See Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 833 (471 SE2d 213) (1996).

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 08/14/2019 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 K. T., Children (Mother), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-k-t-children-mother-gactapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack