From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rogers v. Department of Human Resources

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Feb 19, 1990
392 S.E.2d 713 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990)

Opinion

A89A2270.

DECIDED FEBRUARY 19, 1990. REHEARING DENIED MARCH 27, 1990.

Child support. Putnam Superior Court. Before Judge Prior.

T. Dorsey Yawn, for appellant.

Joseph H. Briley, District Attorney, Josephine B. Jones, Assistant District Attorney, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, H. Perry Michael, Executive Assistant Attorney General, Stephanie B. Manis, Deputy Attorney General, William C. Joy, Senior Assistant Attorney General, William M. Droze, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.


The Georgia Department of Human Resources ("DHR") filed an action against appellant to establish paternity, recover public assistance funds paid for the benefit of a minor child, and for an order establishing future support payments. Appellant sought to obtain, via discovery, certain DHR public assistance documents which the trial court ruled were confidential and nondiscoverable. The order appealed from denied appellant's motion to compel and granted the DHR's motion for protective order.

Although this court granted appellant's application for discretionary appeal, it appears that the appeal must be dismissed as it is premature in the absence of a certificate of immediate review. Because the order appealed from is clearly not a final judgment, the interlocutory appeal procedure set forth in OCGA § 5-6-34 (b) is mandated. Neal v. State, 182 Ga. App. 37 ( 354 S.E.2d 664) (1987).

Appellant's reliance on OCGA § 5-6-35 (b) is misplaced. Clearly, if a final order had been entered, it would be subject to discretionary appeal procedures under OCGA § 5-6-35. However, this provision does not relieve appellant of the requirement of a certificate from the trial judge. Subsection (b) sets out what an application must contain, in cases appealable under subsection (a) where interlocutory review is sought, in addition to a certificate. If we were to conclude otherwise, it would deprive the trial court of the broad discretion it has in determining what preliminary matters are subject to review prior to entry of a final judgment. Lee v. Smith, 119 Ga. App. 808 ( 168 S.E.2d 880) (1969).

Appeal dismissed. Deen, P. J., and Birdsong, J., concur.

DECIDED FEBRUARY 19, 1990 — REHEARING DENIED MARCH 27, 1990 — CERT. APPLIED FOR.


Summaries of

Rogers v. Department of Human Resources

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Feb 19, 1990
392 S.E.2d 713 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990)
Case details for

Rogers v. Department of Human Resources

Case Details

Full title:ROGERS v. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Feb 19, 1990

Citations

392 S.E.2d 713 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990)
392 S.E.2d 713

Citing Cases

Scruggs v. Ga. Dept. of Human Resources

The DHR argues that the interlocutory-application subsection, OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), must be obeyed and cites…

Hayes v. State

The appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to compel all of the respondents in the habeas…