Porter v. Watkins
| Decision Date | 06 July 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 21263,21263 |
| Citation | 217 Ga. 73,121 S.E.2d 120 |
| Parties | Margaret Crews PORTER v. Richard W. WATKINS, Jr., et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
T. V. Mullinax, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Wm. H. Beck, Jr., Griffin, George J. Pollaty, Fort McPherson, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. Where the mother and sole surviving parent of minor children brought this application for writ of habeas corpus against third parties having custody and control of the children under a court order, and a duly exemplified copy of said court order and proceedings in the Juvenile Court of Fulton County, Georgia, shows that the parents of said children had lost custody and control of them by reason of findings of neglect and unfitness to have custody, after proper service, notice and hearings in that court, the lower court did not err in remanding the custody of said children to the parties thus having legal custody. Code § 38-601; Fowler v. Fowler, 190 Ga. 453, 9 S.E.2d 760; Bond v. Norwood, 195 Ga. 383, 24 S.E.2d 289; Shope v. Singleton, 196 Ga. 506, 27 S.E.2d 26; Watkins v. Terrell, 196 Ga. 651, 27 S.E.2d 329; Morris v. Grant, 196 Ga. 692, 27 S.E.2d 295; Camp v. Bookman, 204 Ga. 670, 51 S.E.2d 391; Byers v. Loftis, 208 Ga. 398, 67 S.E.2d 118. While the mother states that the informality of the Juvenile Court was such that she was not aware of advised that her parental rights were severed at one of the hearings, and the record does not disclose that she was served with notice of this hearing, she admitted that she attended the hearing, and no effort was made by her to see or appeal the order. Under the law, that court had authority to sever parental rights at the first hearing when service was had on the parents, and the parents had actual knowledge of the custody of their children by the juvenile court for over two years and attended the various hearings, and this court can not say that there was no due process or a violation of the equal protection clauses of the Constitutions (Code § 1-815, U.S.Const. Amend. 14 and Code, Ann., §§ 2-102, and 2-103; Const. of 1945, art. 1, § 1, pars. 2, 3) in the proceedings in the Juvenile Court of Fulton County, Georgia, in which the parents lost custody of these minor children.
2. The blanket constitutional attack on the Juvenile Court Act of 1951, as amended (Ga.l.1951, pp. 291, 311; 1953, p. 352; 1953, Nov.Sess., p. 87; 1955, p. 581; 1956, p. 69; 1956, p. 603; 1957, p. 307; 1958, p. 395) as violative of the uniformity clause of the Constitution, is without merit. Some portions of the act are obviously not unconstitutional, and this alone would defeat the attack upon the entire statute. Stegall v. Southwest Ga. Regional Housing Authority, 197 Ga. 571, 584, 30 S.E.2d 196; Franklin v. Harper, 205 Ga. 779, 55 S.E.2d 221.
3. The right of trial by jury, under Code § 1-807 (Const. of U.S. Amend. 7), applies to Federal courts and not to State courts, and the right to a jury trial as guaranteed by the State Constitution (Code, Ann., § 2-5101, Const. of 1945, art. 6, § 16, par. 1), i. e., the right shall remain inviolate--are those rights heretofore enjoyed at common law in civil and criminal cases, which can not be impaired by the Legislature. 31 Am.Jur. p. 14, § 8. But no right to trial by jury existed in habeas corpus cases, and certainly not in juvenile courts, where the State as parens patriae has created this court with powers in the nature of habeas corpus for the protection of children. Thu...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jesus F. v. Washoe Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. (In re M.F.)
...of Health & Soc. Servs., 123 P.3d 646, 648–49 (Alaska 2005) ; In re Lambert, 86 A.2d 411, 412–13 (D.C.1952) ; Porter v. Watkins, 217 Ga. 73, 121 S.E.2d 120, 121–22 (1961) ; E.P. v. Marion Cty. Office of Family & Children, 653 N.E.2d 1026, 1030–31 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) ; In Interest of Baby Boy ......
-
Barnes v. Tant, 21261
... ... 448, 22 S.E.2d 50. Here the plaintiff alleged sufficient facts which if proved would authorize the judge to grant a change of custody. Porter v. Chester, 208 Ga. 309, 66 S.E.2d 729. See also Handley v. Handley, 204 Ga. 57, 59, 48, S.E.2d 827, supra; Perry v. Perry, 213 Ga. 847, 102 S.E.2d ... Atkinson v. Atkinson, 160 Ga. 480(1), 128 S.E. 765; Shope v. Singleton, 196 Ga. 506, 507, 27 S.E.2d 26; Watkins v. Terrell, 196 Ga. 651(1), 27 S.E.2d 329 ... In questions of custody the judge has a wide latitude and discretion in determining ... ...
-
Drummond v. Fulton County Dept. of Family and Children Services
...and has all the legal rights of a natural parent, including the benefit of the prima facie right to custody. See Porter v. Watkins, 217 Ga. 73, 121 S.E.2d 120 (1961); Parker v. Thomas County Dept. of Public Welfare, 214 Ga. 701, 107 S.E.2d 178 (1959). As is clear from Code Ann. § 74-403, th......
-
In re M.H.
...and Social Services, 123 P.3d 646, 648-49 (Alaska 2005); In re Lambert, 86 A.2d 411, 412-13 (D.C.Mun.App.1952); Porter v. Watkins, 217 Ga. 73, 121 S.E.2d 120, 121-22 (1961); E.P. v. Marion County Office of Family and Children, 653 N.E.2d 1026, 1030-31 (Ind.App.1995); In Interest of Baby Boy......
-
The Party Respectfully Requests a Jury Trial on All Issues So Triable: What Issues Are Triable to a Jury and What Issues Should Be Triable to a Jury? a Comment on the Right to a Jury Trial, With a Focus on Civil Trials, and When the Right Exists
...349-50. The other of the two-fold barrier was, of course, indictment by grand jury.6. Sixth Amendment, supra note 2.7. Porter v. Watkins, 217 Ga. 73, 74, 121 S.E.2d 120, 121 (1961) (internal parenthetical omitted).8. Duncan, 391 U.S. at 153.9. Id. at 154. 10. U.S. Const. amend. VII.11. Shie......