X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Mercier, Judge. Following the termination of his parental rights, the putative father of J. D. H., Jr. (“Father”) appeals, contending, among other things, that the juvenile court erred by denying his motion for new trial without a hearing. We agree, and, accordingly, we must reverse the juvenile court’s order denying Father’s motion for new trial and remand this case with direction that a hearing be conducted before any new judgment is entered. In relevant part, the record indicates that the juvenile court determined that Father had abandoned J. D. H., Jr. and that the termination of Father’s parental rights would be in J. D. H., Jr.’s best interests. See OCGA § 15-11-310 (setting forth grounds for termination of parental rights) and OCGA § 15112 (1) (defining “abandonment”). Thereafter, Father filed a motion for new trial in which he argued both that the juvenile court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that the evidence was insufficient to support the termination of parental rights. Father also requested a hearing on his claims. A little over a week later, the juvenile court denied Father’s motion for new trial without holding a hearing, and it addressed only Father’s contention that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking. This was reversible error. We have previously explained: “A movant for a new trial is entitled to a hearing on his or her motion. This right is grounded both in OCGA § 5540 . . . and in constitutional requirements for procedural due process.” In the Interest of A. F., 343 Ga. App. 415, 416 (806 SE2d 838) (2017) (citations and punctuation omitted). See Peyton v. Peyton, 236 Ga. 119, 120 (1), (2) (223 SE2d 96) (1976) (“in consonance with constitutional requirements of procedural due process,” a movant for a new trial is entitled to a hearing on his or her motion, but may waive or abandon that right); Shockley v. State, 230 Ga. 869 (199 SE2d 791) (1973) (same). . . . Although there is not a specific uniform rule requiring a juvenile court to conduct a hearing on a motion for new trial, this Court recently decided that a mother who challenged the effectiveness of trial counsel in her motion for new trial in a parental rights termination proceeding in juvenile court was entitled to a hearing on her motion. In the Interest of A. F., 343 Ga. App. at 416. In the Interest of M. I., 344 Ga. App. 172, 172 (809 SE2d 540) (2017) (footnote omitted). See also Triola v. Triola, 292 Ga. 808, 808 (741 SE2d 650) (2013) (“[I]f the trial court denies a motion for new trial in a civil case . . . without holding the mandatory hearing, the error will not be deemed harmless on appeal; instead, the order denying the motion must be reversed and the case remanded with direction that the trial court” hold a hearing. (citation and punctuation omitted). Here, Father properly challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the juvenile court’s decision, and “[a] motion for a new trial is a proper means of seeking a retrial or reexamination, in the same court, of an issue of fact, or of some part or portion thereof, after decision by a jury or a decision by the court thereon.” Kuriatnyk v. Kuriatnyk, 286 Ga. 589, 591 (2) (690 SE2d 397) (2010) (citation and punctuation omitted). Also, Father expressly requested a hearing on his motion, and there is no evidence that he thereafter waived that right. Accordingly, Father was entitled to a hearing, and the juvenile court’s order denying Father’s motion for new trial must be reversed and this case must be remanded with direction that the hearing be conducted. In the Interest of M. I., supra. We also note that, although Father argues the merits of his contentions regarding jurisdiction and sufficiency of the evidence in this appeal, the case must be returned to the juvenile court “for a hearing and disposition of the motion before the merits of the remaining claims of error are addressed.” In the Interest of A. F., supra at 416 (citation and punctuation omitted); accord Triola, supra at 809. Judgment reversed and case remanded with direction. Dillard, P. J., and Markle, J., concur.

 
Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.

More From ALM

With this subscription you will receive unlimited access to high quality, online, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry. This is perfect for attorneys licensed in multiple jurisdictions or for attorneys that have fulfilled their CLE requirement but need to access resourceful information for their practice areas.
View Now
Our Team Account subscription service is for legal teams of four or more attorneys. Each attorney is granted unlimited access to high quality, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry along with administrative access to easily manage CLE for the entire team.
View Now
Gain access to some of the most knowledgeable and experienced attorneys with our 2 bundle options! Our Compliance bundles are curated by CLE Counselors and include current legal topics and challenges within the industry. Our second option allows you to build your bundle and strategically select the content that pertains to your needs. Both options are priced the same.
View Now
June 20, 2024
Atlanta, GA

The Daily Report is honoring those attorneys and judges who have made a remarkable difference in the legal profession.


Learn More
April 29, 2024 - May 01, 2024
Aurora, CO

The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.


Learn More
May 15, 2024
Philadelphia, PA

The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.


Learn More

Truly exceptional Bergen County New Jersey Law Firm is growing and seeks strong plaintiff's personal injury Attorney with 5-7 years plaintif...


Apply Now ›

Shipman is seeking an associate to join our Labor & Employment practice in our Hartford, New Haven, or Stamford office. Candidates shou...


Apply Now ›

Evergreen Trading is a media investment firm headquartered in NYC. We help brands achieve their goals by leveraging their unwanted assets to...


Apply Now ›
04/15/2024
Connecticut Law Tribune

MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS


View Announcement ›
04/11/2024
New Jersey Law Journal

Professional Announcement


View Announcement ›
04/08/2024
Daily Report

Daily Report 1/2 Page Professional Announcement 60 Days


View Announcement ›