L.L.B., In re, 43354

Decision Date12 March 1987
Docket NumberNo. 43354,43354
PartiesIn re L.L.B.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Mary R. Carden, Gainesville, Phyllis J. Holmen, John L. Cromartie, Jr., Atlanta, Janice Y. Martin, Valdosta, for L.L.B.

Ruth F. Claiborne, Atlanta, amicus curaie.

Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., David C. Will, Asst. Atty. Gen.

BELL, Justice.

In this case a juvenile court terminated the appellant's parental rights to her minor daughter, L.L.B. The Court of Appeals affirmed, In re L.L.B., 178 Ga.App. 235, 342 S.E.2d 715 (1986), and we granted certiorari. For the following reasons, we vacate the judgments of the juvenile court and the Court of Appeals, and remand for further proceedings.

The Court of Appeals based its decision on former OCGA § 15-11-51, which was in effect when the Court of Appeals' opinion was issued. OCGA §§ 15-11-51 through 15-11-54 were repealed by Ga.L.1986, p. 1017, effective July 1, 1986, which redesignated §§ 15-11-1 through 15-11-65 as Article 1 of Chapter 11 of Title 15, and added §§ 15-11-80 through 15-11-92 in a new Article 2. The termination of parental rights is now dealt with in Article 2, which has made several important changes in the previous law. For example, OCGA § 15-11-85(a) now requires the appointment of an attorney to represent the child as his counsel in every termination proceeding. Another example is OCGA § 15-11-90(a)(1), which directs the juvenile court, where there is no parent having parental rights, to attempt to place the child with the child's extended family or with a person related by blood or marriage, before making any other disposition.

"[A] reviewing court should apply the law as it exists at the time of its judgment rather than the law prevailing at the rendition of the judgment under review, and may therefore reverse a judgment that was correct at the time it was rendered and affirm a judgment that was erroneous at the time, where the law has been changed in the meantime and where such application of the new law will impair no vested right under the prior law." City of Valdosta v. Singleton, 197 Ga. 194, 208(3), 28 S.E.2d 759 (1944). (Emphasis in original.) Accord, Fulton County v. Spratlin, 210 Ga. 447(2), 80 S.E.2d 780 (1954); Osteen v. Osteen, 244 Ga. 445, 260 S.E.2d 321 (1979).

There are no vested rights that will be impaired by applying the new law of termination of parental rights to this case. Moreover, the retrial of this case under OCGA §§ 15-11-80 et seq. may have a salutary effect, since it is possible that the counsel for L.L.B. who will be appointed pursuant to § 15-11-85(a) will advocate some solution to L.L.B.'s medical dilemma which will stop short of permanently...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Ellerbee v. Interstate Contract Carrier Corp.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • July 14, 1987
    ...made its decision. Since then, effective April 9, 1986, OCGA § 46-1-1 has been rewritten and controls our decision. In re L.L.B., 256 Ga. 768, 353 S.E.2d 507 (1987). It now reads: "(1) 'Carrier' means a person who undertakes the transporting of goods or passengers for compensation. (6) 'For......
  • Price v. Grehofsky
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • March 7, 2019
    ...both of those children remained in her care.2 We apply the statute as it exists at the time of our review. In the Interest of L. L. B. , 256 Ga. 768, 768, 353 S.E.2d 507 (1987) ("A reviewing court should apply the law as it exists at the time of its judgment rather than the law prevailing a......
  • In re A.H., No. A06A0532.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • April 21, 2006
    ...or doing so would impair a party's vested substantive rights. (Citations and punctuation omitted; emphasis in original.) In re L.L.B., 256 Ga. 768, 353 S.E.2d 507 (1987). See also Jackson v. Sluder, 256 Ga.App. 812, 816(1), 569 S.E.2d 893 (2002). So long as an amendment to a statute only af......
  • Vester v. Mug A Bug Pest Control, Inc.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • March 26, 1998
    ...application of the new law will impair no vested right under the prior law.'" (Citations omitted; emphasis in original.) In re L.L.B., 256 Ga. 768, 353 S.E.2d 507 (1987); see also City of Atlanta v. Lee, 262 Ga. 461, 462, 421 S.E.2d 705 (1992). No party has a vested right in a procedure; th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT