One area of ongoing debate amongst policy makers is when does childhood end and adulthood begin. While this question may be addressed by various developmental markers such as age or cognitive abilities, the issue can be particularly contentious in the area of juvenile justice reform. In the midst of such policy debates, providing accountability and appropriate consequences to young offenders sometimes becomes synonymous with their cases being handled by the adult criminal justice system, often without due consideration of what the science of child development can teach us about the effectiveness of the juvenile justice system versus the adult criminal justice system for youths and adolescents. This paper was written to assist Georgia's lawmakers as they wrestle with this important issue.

Representation of children is a complex issue that raises many questions: Do children or youth involved in juvenile court cases need lawyers?  Do children have a right to legal counsel?  Are children capable of directing their own representation?  Does the benefit of counsel depend on the nature of the proceeding?  Yet these individual questions are much more straightforward than the analysis of a child’s right to counsel under Georgia’s existing statutory and case law.  As a result of inconsistent, unclear and sometimes conflicting guidance in the state’s body of law, children’s right to counsel in Georgia is mired in controversy. This white paper explores the constitutional and best practice arguments for a child’s right to counsel in delinquency cases and deprivation cases and includes recommendations to Georgia policy makers for statutory reforms related to child representation in juvenile court.

For the Georgia Legislature to consider substituting the harsh penalties and adult prosecutions of juvenile offenders set up by 1994’s Senate Bill 440 (“SB 440”) for the presumption that the vast majority of juveniles should be processed in juvenile court, lawmakers must be convinced both that the approach of SB 440 is not a time-honored “tradition” and that practical experience as well as legal and scientific principles show that prosecution in juvenile court is preferred.  This white paper begins with the history of juvenile law in Georgia, tracing the efforts of our lawmakers to give juveniles the benefits of accountability and mercy.  It goes on to question whether SB 440 has had a positive impact on the citizens of Georgia and has constituted a wise use of taxpayer resources, and it discusses some of the more recent legal and scientific developments suggesting it may be time for a change.  Finally, this paper concludes with recommendations for further studies that would help policymakers better understand just how SB 440 has functioned and help them determine whether a new approach is needed.

The 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA)  attempted to eliminate the phenomenon of foster care drift.   ASFA’s tight timelines have helped move many children to safer and more permanent families more quickly, but the law also is responsible for the unintended consequence of creating a new population of “legal orphans.”  The Proposed Model Code for Georgia (PMC), recently released by the State Bar of Georgia Young Lawyers Division Juvenile Law Committee, prescribes a remedy to the problem of legal orphans worthy of thoughtful consideration by the child advocacy community, the public, and state legislators.  If enacted, it would create a process by which children can seek to have their parents’ legal rights restored following an involuntary termination of parental rights if certain conditions are met.

Recent studies show that emotional abuse can have long term impact on the physiology of a child’s brain, and seriously impair the child’s ability to develop healthy relationships even into adulthood.  Definitions of emotional abuse vary, but commonly include an injury or potential injury to a child’s mental and emotional health or development, evidenced by the child’s inability to function at his or her normal range of performance and behavior.   Under the current Georgia juvenile code, parents or caretakers are required to provide a child with the proper “care and control necessary for the child’s physical, mental or emotional health or morals.”  However, the current juvenile code and Georgia case law do not provide any further definition or explanation of what is required to protect a child’s mental or emotional health or of how to determine when a child’s emotional heath is at risk.  This paper explores adding a definition of emotional abuse to the Georgia Juvenile Code.