Boddie v. Daniels
Decision Date | 01 November 2010 |
Docket Number | No. S10A1821.,S10A1821. |
Citation | 10 FCDR 3469,288 Ga. 143,702 S.E.2d 172 |
Parties | BODDIE v. DANIELS. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Deborah A. Johnson, Decatur, Rachel M. Lazarus, Lawrenceville, David A. Webster, Atlanta, for appellant.
Berk & Moss, Stephen J. Berk, Decatur, Ronke A. Williams, Tucker, for appellee.
In March 2007, a petition for temporary letters of guardianship for the minor daughter of Tammie Boddie (Mother) was filed in the probate court by Yolanda Daniels (Guardian). Attached to the petition was a notarized written consent signed by Mother. See OCGA § 29-2-6(a). Temporary letters of guardianship were issued in April 2007. In March 2009, Mother filed a petition to terminate the temporary guardianship, Guardian filed a timely objection, and the records were transferred "to the juvenile court, which shall determine, after notice and hearing, whether a continuation or terminationof the temporary guardianship is in the best interest of the minor." OCGA § 29-2-8(b). Mother challenged this "best interest" standard in writing as violative of her constitutional rights. Compare In the Interest of J.R.R., 281 Ga. 662, 663, 641 S.E.2d 526 (2007). After a hearing, the juvenile court rejected that challenge andfound by a preponderance of the evidence that the best interests of the child will be served by continuing the temporary guardianship. The juvenile court denied the request to terminate the guardianship without making any finding that such termination would harm the child. Mother appeals from this order.
Mother contends that OCGA § 29-2-8(b) does not contain sufficient safeguards to protect her fundamental constitutional right to raise her child and that its "best interest" standard should therefore be construed narrowly as in Clark v. Wade, 273 Ga. 587, 544 S.E.2d 99 (2001). In Clark, this Court upheld that standard as constitutional when narrowly construed and "applied to custody disputes between a biological parent and custodial third party under OCGA § 19-7-1(b.1)." Clark v. Wade, supra at 588, 544 S.E.2d 99. Such disputes do not implicate a parent's constitutional rights any more than does the present dispute between a biological parent and a third-party temporary guardian over continuation of the guardianship, since guardianships have at least as great a potential to interfere with parental rights as do awards of custody.
Except with respect to receiving personal property of the minor without becoming her legally qualified conservator, "a temporary guardian shall be entitled to exercise any of the powers of a natural guardian." OCGA § 29-2-7(a). See also OCGA § 29-3-1(d); Jennifer L. Roberts & William J. Self, II, Ga. Guardian and Ward § 2:7 (2009-2010 ed.). "The implication of this provision ... is that guardians of a minor have the powers ... otherwise inherent in parenthood." In the Matter of Guardianship of Doe, 93 Hawai'i 374, 4 P.3d 508, 516(VI) (2000). As a result of these broad powers, In the Matter of Bunting, 311 A.2d 855, 857 (Del.1973). See also 39 CJS Guardian and Ward § 2.
(Emphasis omitted.) [Cit.] Because these concepts share common attributes, we construe the ... guardianship provision ... and the custody provision ...in pari materia in order to determine the appropriate standard to be applied where conflicting claims between parents and non-parents are made in a guardianship hearing. [Cit.]
In the Matter Guardianship of Doe, supra at 516-517(VI).
Consistent with the common attributes of custody and guardianship, those courts which apply certain principles and safeguards in the context of custody disputes between a biological parent and a third party due to constitutional concerns apply those same principles and safeguards to a parent's effort to regain custody by terminating a guardianship. In re Guardianship of D.J., 268 Neb. 239, 682 N.W.2d 238, 246 (2004); In the Matter of the Guardianship of Williams, 254 Kan. 814, 869 P.2d 661, 670 (1994). See also Guardianship of Jeremiah T., 976 A.2d 955, 962-963(II)(B) (Me.2009); In the Interest of SRB-M, 201 P.3d 1115, 1119-1120 (Wyo.2009). Therefore, we conclude that the construction of the "best interest" standard in Clark is controlling in this case.
Although there was no majority opinion in Clark, the plurality opinion clearly represented the views of a majority of Justices on several points. Where, as here, a third party seeks neither to terminate parentalrights nor to break up a natural family by removing the child from her biological parent's custody, Clark v. Wade, supra at 595(III), 544 S.E.2d 99. See also Clark v. Wade, supra at 600, 544 S.E.2d 99 (Sears, J., concurring specially); Clark v. Wade, supra at 601-606, 544 S.E.2d 99 (Hunstein, J., concurring specially) ( ). Compare Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255(II)(A), 98 S.Ct. 549, 54 L.Ed.2d 511 (1978) ( ). The Supreme Court of the United States has not issued any decision since Clark placing that conclusion in doubt.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Zakai F.
...regain custody in the future." In re Guardianship of D.J. , 268 Neb. 239, 248, 682 N.W.2d 238 (2004) ; see also Boddie v. Daniels , 288 Ga. 143, 146–47, 702 S.E.2d 172 (2010) ("[G]uardianships are intended to encourage parents experiencing difficulties to temporarily turn over the custody a......
-
Troesken v. Herrington (In re S.H.)
...of proof applies to the guardian's burden in a proceeding to terminate a guardianship established by consent); Boddie v. Daniels, 288 Ga. 143, 702 S.E.2d 172, 175 (2010) (requiring guardian to prove by clear and convincing evidence that terminating the guardianship would harm the child); To......
-
G.Y. v. S.W. (In re L.Y.)
...termination of the voluntary guardianship with clear and convincing evidence as the standard of proof. See, e.g. , Boddie v. Daniels , 288 Ga. 143, 702 S.E.2d 172, 175 (2010) ; In re Guardianship of Reena D. , 35 A.3d at 514. Overall, when a parent who has never been adjudicated unfit files......
-
Brawner v. Miller
...accord Galtieri,295 Ga.App. at 798, 673 S.E.2d 300.9 Trotter,315 Ga.App. at 9(2), 726 S.E.2d 424; see also Boddie v. Daniels,288 Ga. 143, 145, 702 S.E.2d 172 (2010)(holding that when “a third party seeks neither to terminate parental rights nor break up a natural family by removing the chil......
-
Wills, Trusts, Guardianships, and Fiduciary Administration - Mary F. Radford
...clear and convincing evidence that the child will suffer physical or emotional harm if the guardianship is terminated.151 The court 139. 288 Ga. 143, 702 S.E.2d 172 (2010). 140. See Radford, supra note 119, § 2-4, for a description of temporary guardianships. 141. Boddie, 288 Ga. at 143, 70......