--- title: In the Interest of M. R. S., a Child collection: opinions id: S25G0338 cite_as: In the Interest of M. R. S., a Child, 321 Ga. 521 (2025) canonical_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S25G0338 md_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S25G0338.md text_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S25G0338/text source_url: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10680470/in-the-interest-of-m-r-s-a-child/ date: 2025-05-06 status: published corpus_version: opinions-2026-09-14 license: Public record of the Supreme Court of Georgia, via CourtListener and the court's own website; see about.md publisher: Georgia Commons, an independent project of Georgia Civic Data. Not the State of Georgia. Not legal advice. up: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/2025.md previous: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S25Y0686.md next: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S25A0079.md index: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/index.md omitted: opinion extras omitted_chars: 1853 omitted_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S25G0338.md?full=1 docket: S25G0338 citation: 321 Ga. 521 court: Supreme Court of Georgia case_type: civil authoring_justice: Pinson disposition: Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded vote: All the Justices concur word_count: 576 date_filed_source: courtlistener record_source: courtlistener legal_areas: - family law - civil procedure upstream_id: "10680470" summaries_model: claude-sonnet-5 --- # In the Interest of M. R. S., a Child Supreme Court of Georgia, docket S25G0338, filed 2025-05-06, 321 Ga. 521. ## Opinion 321 Ga. 521 FINAL COPY S25G0338. IN THE INTEREST OF M. R. S., a child. PINSON, Justice. In this case, the juvenile court ordered the termination of pa- rental rights of the mother of M. R. S. on June 10, 2022. The mother filed a notice of appeal, but her counsel did not take the appropriate steps for a discretionary appeal.1 After realizing her counsel’s mis- take, the mother got new counsel and then moved for an out-of-time appeal, asked the court to set aside the termination order, and sought a new trial. The court denied the requests in a single order, and the mother appealed, but the Court of Appeals vacated the order for jurisdictional reasons. So the mother made the same requests again, and the trial court denied them again in another order. The mother appealed to the Court of Appeals a second time. This time — more than two years after the mother’s parental rights 1 Appeals from orders terminating parental rights must be brought by discretionary application. OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (12). had been terminated — the court affirmed the termination of paren- tal rights, holding (as relevant here) that the mother failed to ade- quately “enumerate” as error the juvenile court’s denial of her mo- tion for an out-of-time appeal. In the Interest of M. R. S., 373 Ga. App. 201, 204 (1) (b) (907 SE2d 203) (2024) (citing OCGA § 5-6-48 (f)). Presiding Judge McFadden dissented in part, noting among other things that OCGA § 5-6-48 requires appellate courts to try to “discern what errors an appellant is attempting to articulate”; that the Appellate Practice Act must be “liberally construed so as to bring about a decision of the merits of every case appealed”; and that the Act “authorizes practically unlimited looseness in an appellant’s enumeration of errors.” In the Interest of M. R. S., 373 Ga. App. at 205-06 (1) (McFadden, P. J., dissenting in part) (citations and punc- tuation omitted). In light of these principles, the dissent reasoned that, “[w]hen her enumeration of errors is read together with the notice of appeal and the record, particularly the order appealed from — as subsection (f) requires — it is clear that her first enumeration encompasses the dismissal of her motion for out-of-time appeal” and so complied with the statutory requirement. Id. at 208 (1). The mother sought review in this Court, and we asked the State to address in a response to her petition whether she properly raised her challenge to the denial of her motion for an out-of-time appeal. For largely the reasons set out in Division 1 of the dissent, In the Interest of M. R. S., 373 Ga. App. at 205-08 (1), the State con- ceded that the denial of the motion for an out-of-time appeal was properly raised on appeal. We agree. The case is remanded for the Court of Appeals to consider the mother’s claims about the denial of her motion for an out-of-time appeal. Petition for writ of certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded. Peterson, C. J., Warren, P. J., and Bethel, Ellington, McMillian, LaGrua, and Colvin, JJ., concur. Decided May 6, 2025. Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia — 373 Ga. App. 201. Forrest K. Shealy, for appellant. Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, Bryan K. Webb, Deputy Attorney General, Jason S. Naunas, Calandra A. Harps, Senior As- sistant Attorneys General, Sanders B. Deen, Assistant Attorney Gen- eral, for appellee. ## Summaries written by Georgia Commons The following was written by claude-sonnet-5 from the opinion above and is not part of the court's opinion. Quote the opinion, not the summary. The Supreme Court of Georgia sent a Fulton-area mother's parental rights case back to the Court of Appeals of Georgia, ruling she had properly raised her challenge to the denial of her motion for an out-of-time appeal. ### Plain-language summary A mother's parental rights to her child were terminated by a juvenile court in 2022. Her original lawyer failed to follow the correct procedure for appealing that decision, so after getting new counsel she asked the court to allow a late appeal, set aside the termination order, and grant a new trial. The trial court denied those requests twice, and after a jurisdictional detour, the Court of Appeals of Georgia eventually ruled that she had not properly identified the denial of her out-of-time appeal request as an error in her filings, so it would not consider that issue. The Supreme Court of Georgia took up the case to decide whether she had, in fact, raised that issue adequately. Agreeing with a partial dissent from the Court of Appeals and a concession by the state, the court held that she did raise it properly when her filings are read together with the record. The court vacated the Court of Appeals' judgment and sent the case back for that court to actually consider her claim. ### Holding, as summarized The court held that the mother had adequately raised, in her appellate filings, a challenge to the juvenile court's denial of her motion for an out-of-time appeal, because Georgia's appellate procedure statute (OCGA § 5-6-48(f)) requires courts to read the enumeration of errors together with the notice of appeal and the record to discern the errors being raised. ### Disposition Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded. All the Justices concur. ### Why it matters The ruling means the mother's challenge to how her parental rights case was handled will finally get considered on the merits, more than two years after termination. It also reinforces that Georgia appellate courts must read a person's filings generously rather than dismiss claims over technical wording. > The summarized reasoning, checked quotes, suggested questions, and the CourtListener opinion records (1,853 characters) are at https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S25G0338.md?full=1