Ward v. Department of Human Resources, 56826
| Decision Date | 21 February 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 56826,56826 |
| Citation | 253 S.E.2d 463,149 Ga.App. 99 |
| Parties | WARD et al. v. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Wallace & Moss, Howard P. Wallace, Griffin, for appellants.
Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Robert S. Stubbs, II, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Carol Atha Cosgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richard L. Mullins, Sp. Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellants, Charles and Glenda Ward, petitioned the superior court for the adoption of a minor child which was in the custody of the Department of Human Resources. The department had been awarded custody of the child on the basis of a juvenile court order finding it to be deprived. The natural parents executed affidavits consenting to the adoption, and these were attached to the petition.
The department intervened in the case and expressed its opposition to the adoption by filing two investigative reports, one from the Spalding County Department of Family & Children Services and one from the Henry County Department of Family & Children Services. Both of these reports concluded that the adoption would not be in the best interests of the child. The reports stated that the child had previously been placed with the appellants for foster care for a period of several months; that during this period there had been frequent contact with the natural parents, with whom the appellants were close; and that the natural parents' consent to the adoption was based upon a promise by the appellants to allow them to visit the child freely. The report further stated that contact with the natural parents following an adoption can be emotionally damaging to a child.
The only evidence heard at the hearing on the petition was the testimony of the appellants. Based on this testimony and on the department's reports, the trial court entered findings of fact, concluded that it would not be in the best interests of the child to allow the adoption, and denied the petition. This appeal followed.
1. The appellants contend that, by virtue of Code Ann. § 74-410(b) (Ga.L.1977, pp. 201, 216), the department was required to file a motion to dismiss as a condition precedent to opposing the petition. That Code section provides as follows: "If the report of the Department of Human Resources or the licensed child-placing agency as provided herein, disapproves of the adoption of the child, motion May be made by said department or by the licensed child-placing agency to the court to dismiss the petition, and the court after hearing is authorized to do so." (Emphasis supplied.) This language is clearly permissive not mandatory. This enumeration of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chandler v. Cochran
...mandatory to consider the report; however, they all involved situations in which a report had been made. Ward v. Dept. of Human Resources, 149 Ga.App. 99 (2), 253 S.E.2d 463 (1979); Wellfort v. Bowick, 147 Ga.App. 565 (3), 249 S.E.2d 363 As we have noted above, § 74-409(a) gives the trial j......
- Dollar v. State