Motes v. Hall County Dept. of Family and Children Services
| Decision Date | 07 September 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 39923,39923 |
| Citation | 251 Ga. 373,306 S.E.2d 260 |
| Parties | Judy Diane MOTES v. HALL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN SERVICES. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Jefferson W. Willis, Sartain & Carey, Gainesville, for Judy Diane motes.
David A. Fox, Gainesville, Michael J. Bowers,. Atty. Gen., David C. Will, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Hall County Dept. of Family and Children Services.
This appeal challenges the constitutionality of OCGA § 31-20-3 (Code Ann. § 84-933), which provides for involuntary sterilization of certain mentally incompetent persons.
The Hall County Department of Family and Children Services (DFCS) initiated proceedings against Ms. Motes under OCGA § 31-20-3 (Code Ann. § 84-933), by filing a petition for sterilization in the Probate Court of Hall County. The Probate Court denied the petition and DFCS appealed to the Superior Court of Hall County. After trial de novo, that court granted the petition and ordered that Ms. Motes be sterilized. She appeals that order urging that OCGA § 31-20-3 (Code Ann. § 84-933) is overly broad, lacks adequate guidelines and safeguards, and violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the United States Constitution by invading her right to privacy and depriving her of the right to have children.
1. Ms. Motes contends that the judicial standard to be used by a court in deciding whether to authorize sterilization under OCGA § 31-20-3 (Code Ann. § 84-933) does not meet minimal constitutional requirements. Under this Code section, if the judge "shall find by a legal preponderance of all the evidence" that the person alleged to be subject to this Code section is a person who, because of mental retardation, brain damage, or both, is irreversibly and incurably mentally incompetent to the degree that such person, with or without economic aid (charitable or otherwise) from others, could not provide care and support for any children procreated by such person in such a way that such children could reasonably be expected to survive to the age of 18 years without suffering or sustaining serious mental or physical harm, and that the condition of such person is irreversible and incurable, the judge shall enter an order and judgment authorizing sterilization. Ms. Motes contends that her liberty interest at stake in this proceeding is such that due process requires a judicial finding of "clear and convincing" evidence, not merely a "preponderance of evidence", in order to authorize sterilization.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that procreation is a fundamental right, saying: Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 1113, 86 L.Ed. 1655, 1660 (1942).
The Supreme Court has mandated an elevated standard of "clear and convincing" proof when the individual's interest at stake in a proceeding is more precious than any property right, Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 758-759, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 1396, 71 L.Ed.2d 599, 609-610 (1982), or more substantial than mere loss of money, Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 424, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 1808, 60 L.Ed.2d 323, 329-330 (1979).
In state initiated proceedings for the termination of parental rights, Santosky v. Kramer, supra, civil commitment to a mental institution, Addington v. Texas, supra, deportation, Woodby v. INS, 385 U.S. 276, 87 S.Ct. 483, 17 L.Ed.2d 362 (1966), and denaturalization, Chaunt v. United States, 364 U.S. 350, 81 S.Ct. 147, 5 L.Ed.2d 120 (1960), the Court has recognized that the losses of individual liberties were sufficiently serious to require imposition of the elevated standard of "clear and convincing" proof. In all of these proceedings, except proceedings to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simpson Consulting, Inc. v. Barclays Bank PLC
...v. Blackburn, 249 Ga. 689, 692, 292 S.E.2d 821 (1982); In re Suggs, 249 Ga. 365, 367, 291 S.E.2d 233 (1982); Motes v. Hall County DFACS, 251 Ga. 373, 374, 306 S.E.2d 260 (1983); In re Baby Girl Eason, 257 Ga. 292, 295, 358 S.E.2d 459 (1987); In re L.H. R., 253 Ga. 439, 445, 321 S.E.2d 716 (......
-
Doe v. District of Columbia
...to present witnesses and be heard”); see also In re C.D.M., 627 P.2d 607, 612 (Alaska 1981); Motes v. Hall Cty. Dep't of Family & Children Servs., 251 Ga. 373, 306 S.E.2d 260, 262 (1983); In re Hillstrom, 363 N.W.2d 871, 876–77 (Minn.Ct.App.1985) (all holding that 14th Amendment requires st......
-
Vaughn v. Ruoff
...v. Valerie N., 707 P.2d 760 (Cal. 1985); In the Matter of A.W., 637 P.2d 366 (Colo. 1981) (en banc); Motes v. Hall County Dep't of Family & Children Servs., 306 S.E.2d 260, 262 (Ga. 1983) ("We therefore conclude that the seriousness of an individual's interest at stake in a state initiated ......
-
Does I to III v. Dist. of Columbia
...v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 433, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979)) (internal citation omitted); Motes v. Hall Cnty. Dep't of Family & Children Servs., 251 Ga. 373, 306 S.E.2d 260, 262 (1983) (“We find that involuntary sterilization is akin to termination of parental rights. We therefore con......
-
The Georgia Home Rule System - R. Perry Sentell, Jr.
...to provide fire protection nor does it prevent municipal voters from so agreeing by petition and referendum." Id. 324. Id. at 378, 306 S.E.2d at 260. "In addition to the other powers which it may have, the governing body of any municipal corporation shall have the following powers, under th......