M.A.L., In Interest of, A91A2256

Decision Date16 January 1992
Docket NumberNo. A91A2256,A91A2256
Citation415 S.E.2d 649,202 Ga.App. 768
PartiesIn the Interest of M.A.L., a child.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Randall L. Keen, Jonesboro, for appellant.

Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., William C. Joy, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Margot M. Cairnes, Staff Atty., Atlanta, Foster & Foster, Michael D. Anderson, Lillian L. Neal, Jonesboro, for appellee.

POPE, Judge.

Appellant, the mother of M.A.L., appeals the order of the Juvenile Court of Clayton County terminating her parental rights. Held:

At the outset we must determine our jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, although this issue has not been raised by either party.

The record shows the trial court's order terminating appellant's parental rights was signed by the juvenile court judge on November 15, 1990, but that the order was not filed until January 28, 1991. Appellant filed a motion for new trial on January 9, 1991. It appears, therefore, that appellant's motion for new trial was prematurely filed. However, and pretermitting the issue of the timeliness of appellant's motion for new trial, we reiterate that a motion for new trial may not be used to attack an order of the juvenile court, inasmuch as a juvenile court has no authority to consider or grant new trials. See OCGA § 5-5-1; In the Interest of J.O., 191 Ga.App. 521(1), 382 S.E.2d 214 (1989). Thus a motion for new trial, even when timely filed, will not "toll" the time for filing an appeal in a juvenile court case. See In the Interest of J.O., id. at (1), 382 S.E.2d 214.

A juvenile court order can be challenged, however, by the filing of a motion to modify or vacate pursuant to OCGA § 15-11-42. Id.; In re P.S.C., 143 Ga.App. 887, 240 S.E.2d 165 (1977). An order on such a motion filed within the statutory appeal period is appealable to this court, even if the order is rendered more than 30 days from the original order sought to be vacated or modified. In the Interest of J.O., supra 191 Ga.App. at 522(1), 382 S.E.2d 214.

In determining whether a motion filed within the 30-day statutory appeal period will be treated as a motion to vacate or modify pursuant to OCGA § 15-11-42, this court will look to the substance of the motion, not its nomenclature. Id. Here, the only motion filed within the 30-day statutory appeal period did nothing more than challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on which the juvenile court's order was based and state that the juvenile court committed error requiring a new trial. The motion made no reference to any of the factors which would warrant the vacation or modification of the court's order under OCGA § 15-11-42. Consequently, the motion in this case cannot be treated as a motion to modify or vacate pursuant to that section. Cf. id.

Although appellant did file...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • T.A.W., In Interest of
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • July 14, 1994
    ...because of the decisions of this Court in In the Interest of J.O., 191 Ga.App. 521, 382 S.E.2d 214 (1989), and In the Interest of M.A.L., 202 Ga.App. 768, 415 S.E.2d 649 (1992), cert. denied, 202 Ga.App. 906 (1992), but noted that a state constitutional provision gave juvenile courts such I......
  • Bannister v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • January 29, 1992
    ... ... provides "that the due process concept of fundamental fairness require[s] that the public interest in protecting the flow of information to law enforcement officials be balanced against the right of ... ...
  • IN RE BSH
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • March 11, 1999
    ...The county counters that 30 days is the maximum time available to file such a motion and relies on In the Interest of J.O.8 and In the Interest of M.A.L..9 In the Interest of M.A.L. cites In the Interest of J.O. for the proposition that "[a]n order on ... a motion [to modify or vacate pursu......
  • T.A.W., In Interest of
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • March 6, 1995
    ...by the juvenile court, held that it was constrained by the Court of Appeals' decisions to the contrary, iN interest oF M.A.L., 202 gA.app. 768, 415 S.E.2d 649 (1992) and iN interest of J.O., 191 Ga.App. 521, 382 S.E.2d 214 (1989). The Court of Appeals transferred the appeal to this court on......
  • 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