*1 119 аncillary , tain ministerial duties . . . function of the cor- oner is to inquest. conduct an legislature has defined the term ‘inquest’ judicial as ‘an official inquiry before a coroner and a coro- jury ner’s for the рurpose determining . . cause of death.’ . Code (3)] OCGA 45-16-21 . . . Further- [Former] [now more, as Fidelity Co., stated Gillikin v. U. S. &c. 254 N.C. (118 SE2d duty ‘The of determining inquest whether an necessary and the conducting inquest manner of ” (260 504). functions.’ Sanders v. App. 151 Gа. has failed to follow the appeal procedures required OCGA appeal her must be City dismissed. See Walker v. Macon, 776). App. 166 Ga. Bright See also DeKalb County, 174 58); Goza, Crawford 1).
Appeal Bаnke, J., Benham, J., dismissed. C. concur. Decided November Kunz, Robert A. Lewis, James H.
Joseph Fowler, H. appellee.
70693. NOGGLE v. ARNOLD.
Benham, Judge. appeal must be dismissed due to failure to follow procedure for discretionary required review by OCGA § (a) (2). Brown v. Williams, Appeal Banke, J., dismissed. Deen, J., C. J., P. McMurray, P. Birdsong, J., P. Carley, Sognier, JJ., Pope, Beasley, J., concur. dissents.
Beasley, Judge, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the dismissal of for failure to follow the discretionary route in this case. OCGA 5-6-35 was and, аmended in (a) among (1), (2) other things, subsection substantially enlarged to embrace additional subject matter. It was intended, clear what was which has led to some confusion. Brown v. we held that an from legitimation proceeding requires application, because it is “a type of domestic relations case.” Yet several months before, we had remanded a direct appeal from denial of a not made court had because the trial of a minor required of law as and conclusions findings fact written opinion). opinion con- That (unpublished Cooper v. 9-11-52. no- to file another thereafter be free party shall losing “The cluded: Thus, in that case to do so.” if she should wish he or tice *2 and appropriate, was least, the view that direct we had taken ap- more, another direct have invited what is we we acted on And peal 17, 1985, in the appellant April Brown was decided
When 25, dutifully his notice filed already, had on March instant case know about Obviously, he could not 8 ordеr. appeal from the March probably have known he April 17 decision. would decision, his of the correct view unpublished Cooper v. others, this even on common procedure ' newly Court, nоt an unreasonable construction and was statute. amended appellant on notice that nothing all to
There was views, conflicting this Court held proper procedure, about which does not seem discretionary in favor route. It would be resolved seen from a As will be fair to a review these circumstances. merits, compounding lack of due only discussion of we course, now Brown hаs petition. Of process accorded no given and there will be excuse published, notice has been I give prospective applica- it erroneously filing appeal. a direсt would arguably the only, by appellant chosen since the track policy and adopt to such a correct one. This court has discretion to at his first destina- thereby unsuspecting appellant arrive allow tion, i.e., appeal. Fitting expressed full is the rationale review his County, Ins. v. DeKalb in Federated Mut. Co. (1985). merits,
Turning legiti- to the trial court denied the status macy full as one-year-old of a nоw child who bears his father’s name of an or- “junior.” legitimacy, The law favors as society, upon which rest dered and moral but also as a concrete basis chil- certain It has been that the law favors said Odum, dren, safety society. it to Harrison where can be done with 1038) (1918).1 strong is so preference wed- during is allowed to occur various means besides birth during conception lock: birth after where occurs wedlock ends but (OCGA (a)); parents where marriage birth before wedlock § (OCGA 19-7-20; marry thereafter child as and father substantially present with the refers Code 1910 That case law, OCGA 19-7-20. (b) (288 887) (1982)) Clark, Glover birth); marriage during bigаmous birth (legitimacy is dated first wife occurs after where cohabitation and faith dies; marriage innocently good bigamous birth so children are not deemed (recognized legitimate innocent Spivey, bastards), Brazziel v. way marriage;
birth of common law birth of artificial insemination (OCGA 19-7-21); Absent procedure circumstances, statutory procedure one of the other initiated fully is the one for to render his child exclusive a father Blanks, Savage v. legitimate. course,
Of he has no absolute This is be- so central purpose protect cause that the legiti- issue what is the best interests of the child with macy versus illegitimacy.
While the hand challenges which determination heavy on discretion should be so as not disturb the are at the perceive, battlefield can see hear and we *3 vigilant in assuring proрer are to the of dis- power exercise that within cretion the bounds of the law. strayed First,
Here the trial appears from confines. there was no hearing petition. on the father’s The record us before consists of three simple petition, conclusory documents: the the short person answer filed a who unanimously says this court had no right may intervene and who not at the time have evеn the be, administrator he legitima- claimed and the court order denying tion. The record show hearing does not that a issues on the by the legitimation petition raised under OCGA 19-7-22. The brief complains the father that petition the denied a hearing in separate custody a case brought the child’s aunt and uncle and that the court did so after reserving judgment, their re- in quest, custody the The appellee, stаnding has no in the legitimation confirms the happened father’s recitation of what Obviously, below. the of legitimation strengthens denial the claim of custody the aunt and uncle weakening while that of child’s thе father, because prima custody. entitles the father facie to v. Pope, 19-7-25; Sims 289, seems elementary process requires
It that due appel- a petition, lant’s opportunity an to show that the child in recognized eyes the of the law as a child. Legitimation proceedings may summarily pro- not be dealt with but require due White, See, In re e.g., cess.
(1985). considerations to be taken into account latter, recog- custody suit. while with those Here parent nizing legitimacy, on fitness of the focuses apparently together. considered them the petition a month after the order which was entered the of the child filed, that it was the best interest the court concluded that assigned reasons legitimation. the death, that it could see trial for the mother’s awaiting the father was from “absolutely no benefit” to child inheritance from adequately supported expected child would be Security mother Social benefits. plus court-surmised Legitimation legitimation. These are not valid basеs to withhold It is distinc- results a number of benefits to child. illegitimacy is rights flowing legitimacy from legal can sue for example, For children of both classifications diminishing. Jackson, 251 Ga. wrongful mother’s death. v. a father’s or а Edenfield Murrell, cited Tolbert see Weldon v. also 570) (1984). support And the supra. Ade- father is the same for both categories. help basis quate support without the father’s was thus an irrelevant legal court’s differ- legitimation. denial dwindling, that the word “children” ences the law still King King, does not se children. per include 147) (1962). social The court should overlook the person whose implications personal as well may status as a measurement of self-esteem be lowered bas- result, legal public tard. Even if does not scorn discrimination very possibly These doubt private might. discrimination reasons no presumption is one contribute to the persuasive Stephens v. strongest and most known to law. Georgia To our Consti- recently purposes “promote tution was is to added one of Const, happiness family.” interest ... of Ga. Pream- seeking Here from the living parent ble. we have the child *4 relationship. law the of that
Probably
significant
acquisition
result of
most
Smith,
If the trial court opinion the child’s best inter- ests will not be pursuit advanced the father in his appoint guardiаn could represent ad litem to OCGA 29-4-7. Decided December
Lawson E. Thompson, Burton,
Susanne F. for appellee.
70405. DEAN v. THE STATE.
Pope, Judge. On February Lynn Wayne defendant Dean plea guilty charge burglary peni- and was “sentenced” to tentiary years, for five given years probation but five under the First Offender Act to a August Due conviction on for burglary, adjudication guilt the court entered an