In the Interest of M. I., a Child
809 S.E.2d 540
Ga. Ct. App.2017Background
- DFCS filed a dependency petition alleging that infant M.I. suffered abuse while in his parents’ care and sought protective custody.
- After a preliminary protective hearing, the juvenile court found there was not probable cause to believe the child was dependent.
- M.I., through his child advocate attorney and guardian ad litem, moved for a new trial and expressly requested a hearing on that motion.
- The juvenile court denied the motion for new trial without conducting a hearing and without any record of waiver by M.I.
- M.I. appealed the denial, contending the court erred by failing to hold the required hearing; DFCS filed a brief supporting the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a juvenile court must hold a hearing on a motion for new trial | M.I.: Movant is entitled to a hearing under OCGA § 5-5-40 and due process; he requested one and did not waive it | Mother/juvenile court: (implicitly) no hearing needed; mother argued remand unnecessary because court must find present dependency before removal | Court: A hearing is required; denial without hearing vacated and case remanded for hearing |
| Whether M.I.’s motion raised proper grounds entitling him to a hearing | M.I.: Motion attacked the court’s evidentiary findings, a proper ground for new trial | Mother: On appeal argued remand is unwarranted given dependency-finding requirements | Court: Motion asserted appropriate errors (evidentiary findings); merits must be addressed in juvenile court after hearing, so appellate court did not decide them now |
| Whether remand is unnecessary because juvenile court must find present dependency to remove child | Mother: Remand pointless because removal requires present dependency finding | M.I.: Remand appropriate to allow reexamination of issues and to protect right to hearing | Court: Rejected mother’s argument; juvenile courts can find present dependency based on past abuse, and remand is appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Peyton v. Peyton, 236 Ga. 119 (constitutional due process entitles movant to hearing on new trial)
- Shockley v. State, 230 Ga. 869 (same)
- Kuriatnyk v. Kuriatnyk, 286 Ga. 589 (motion for new trial is proper vehicle to seek reexamination of factual issues)
- In the Interest of M. O., 233 Ga. App. 125 (juvenile appeal where movant failed to state proper grounds for new trial)
- Sidhu v. Ga. Macon Contractors & Equip., 263 Ga. App. 100 (vacating denial and remanding for hearing when trial court failed to hold hearing on motion for new trial)
- Wright v. Barnes, 240 Ga. App. 684 (same)
- In the Interest of K. J., 268 Ga. App. 843 (juvenile court may base present dependency finding on past abuse)
- In the Interest of T. V., 302 Ga. App. 124 (order transferring custody must be grounded on present dependency)