D.L.G., In Interest of, A94A0079
| Decision Date | 09 March 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. A94A0079,A94A0079 |
| Citation | 442 S.E.2d 11,212 Ga.App. 353 |
| Parties | In the Interest of D.L.G. et al., children. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Robert L. Waller III, Lawrenceville, for appellant.
Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., William C. Joy, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, Teresa E. Lazzaroni, Staff Atty., Crews, Salter & Gisler, H. Burton Crews, Jerry L. Patrick, Jr., Jonesboro, for appellee.
Appellant appeals an order of the Juvenile Court of Clayton County which found appellant's three children to be deprived and placed them in temporary custody of the Department of Family & Children Services.
1. Appellant asserts that the trial court failed to make specific findings of fact sufficient to support its order finding deprivation. It is well-established that In the Interest of A.A.G., 143 Ga.App. 648(1), 239 S.E.2d 697 (1977). See also W.R.G. v. State of Ga., 142 Ga.App. 81, 235 S.E.2d 43 (1977); Jackson v. Jackson, 145 Ga.App. 564, 244 S.E.2d 91 (1978); OCGA § 15-11-33.
In the present case, the trial court's order sets forth the allegations contained in the deprivation petition, facts regarding the informal hearing (such as date and those in attendance), and facts regarding the formal hearing (again, the date of the hearing and a list of those in attendance). Thereafter, the trial court set forth its conclusions. The trial court did not adopt the allegations contained in the deprivation petition as conclusions of fact.
Woodruff v. B-X Corp., 154 Ga.App. 197(2), 267 S.E.2d 757 (1980). Furthermore, Moore v. Farmers Bank of Union Point, 182 Ga.App. 94, 95, 354 S.E.2d 692 (1987). Therefore, as the trial court failed to set forth its findings of fact upon which it based its finding of deprivation, we must remand this appeal with direction that the trial court vacate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
King v. King
...explains them," fail to qualify as findings of fact and conclusions of law under OCGA § 9-11-52 (a) );5 In the Interest of D. L. G. , 212 Ga. App. 353, 353 (1), 442 S.E.2d 11 (1994) (concluding that when making findings of fact and conclusions of law required under OCGA § 9-11-52 (a), "[t]h......
-
In re Interest of B.G.
...OCGA § 15–11–111 (b) (2). Such findings of fact "should be made in accordance with OCGA § 9–11–52 (a)," In the Interest of D.L.G. , 212 Ga. App. 353 (1), 442 S.E.2d 11 (1994) (citations and punctuation omitted) (regarding order in deprivation proceeding under former juvenile code), which pr......
-
Cockerham v. Cockerham
...of how those facts give support to or what constitutes the separate conclusions.(Citations and punctuation omitted.) In re D.L.G. , 212 Ga. App. 353, 442 S.E.2d 11 (1994). See Moore v. Farmers Bank of Union Point , 182 Ga. App. 94, 95 (1), 354 S.E.2d 692 (1987), overruled on other grounds, ......
-
Sherman v. Dev. Auth. of Fulton Cnty.
...these findings of fact and conclusions of law fail to satisfy the requirements of OCGA § 9–11–52(a). See In the Interest of D.L.G., 212 Ga.App. 353(1), 442 S.E.2d 11 (1994) (noting that OCGA § 9–11–52(a) requires a trial judge to ascertain facts and to state not only the end result of that ......