Prerequisite findings prior to appointment of emergency guardian; evaluation; notice; hearing; O.C.G.A. § 29-4-15

Print This Article

Prerequisite findings prior to appointment of emergency guardian; evaluation; notice; hearing; O.C.G.A. § 29-4-15

Nov 5th, 2025

Elder Law, Guardianship & Conservatorship

All things being equal, a Petition for Emergency Guardianship should be denied in favor of a permanent petition. The reason is because emergency petitions are usually ex parte proceedings while the permanent petition allows all interested parties to present their arguments.

O.C.G.A. § 29-4-15 provides:

(a) Upon the filing of a petition for an emergency guardianship, the court shall review the petition and the affidavit, if any, to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that the proposed ward is in need of an emergency guardian within the meaning of paragraph (4) of subsection (b) of Code Section 29-4-14.

(b) If the court determines that there is no probable cause to believe that the proposed ward is in need of an emergency guardian, the court shall dismiss the petition and provide the proposed ward with a copy of the petition, the affidavit, if any, and the order dismissing the petition.

Dismissal required if there is no emergency

In In the Interest of Farr, 322 Ga. App. 55 (2013), St. Joseph’s/Candler Health System filed a Petition for appointment of an emergency guardian for Claudine Farr. The reason was so the hospital could discharge Farr. The probate court dismissed the hospital’s petition for failure to satisfy the requirements of O.C.G.A. § 29-4-14 (b) (4). “Specifically, the trial court determined that the petition fails to satisfy the requirements of O.C.G.A. § 29-4-14 (b) (4) as required by O.C.G.A. § 29-4-15 (a). See O.C.G.A. § 29-4-15 (a) (Upon the filing of a petition for an emergency guardianship, the court shall review the petition and the affidavit, if any, to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that the proposed ward is in need of an emergency guardian within the meaning of paragraph (4) of subsection (b) of Code Section 29-4-14.); O.C.G.A. § 29-4-15 (b) (If the court determines that there is no probable cause to believe that the proposed ward is in need of an emergency guardian, the court shall dismiss the petition . …).”

(c) If the court determines that there is probable cause to believe that the proposed ward is in need of an emergency guardian, the court shall:

(1) Immediately appoint legal counsel to represent the proposed ward at the emergency hearing, which counsel may be the same counsel who is appointed to represent the proposed ward in the hearing on the petition for guardianship or conservatorship, if any such petition has been filed, and shall inform counsel of the appointment;

(2) Order an emergency hearing to be conducted not sooner than three days nor later than five days after the filing of the petition;

(3) Order an evaluation of the proposed ward by an evaluator who shall be a physician licensed to practice medicine under Chapter 34 of Title 43, a psychologist licensed to practice under Chapter 39 of Title 43, a physician assistant licensed under Chapter 34 of Title 43, a nurse practitioner or clinical nurse specialist in psychiatric/mental health licensed or registered under Chapter 26 of Title 43, a professional counselor licensed under Chapter 10A of Title 43, or a licensed clinical social worker, other than the physician, psychologist, physician assistant, nurse practitioner, clinical nurse specialist in psychiatric/mental health, professional counselor, or licensed clinical social worker who completed the affidavit attached to the petition pursuant to paragraph (1) of subsection (d) of Code Section 29-4-10. The evaluation shall be conducted within 72 hours of the time the order was issued and a written report shall be furnished to the court and made available to the parties within this time frame, which evaluation and report shall be governed by the provisions of subsection (d) of Code Section 29-4-11;

(4) Immediately notify the proposed ward of the proceedings by service of all pleadings on the proposed ward, which notice shall:

(A) Be served personally on the proposed ward by an officer of the court and shall not be served by mail;

(B) Inform the proposed ward that a petition has been filed to have an emergency guardian appointed for the proposed ward, that the proposed ward has the right to attend any hearing that is held, and that, if an emergency guardian is appointed, the proposed ward may lose important rights to control the management of the proposed ward’s person;

(C) Inform the proposed ward of the place and time at which the proposed ward shall submit to the evaluation provided for by paragraph (3) of this subsection;

(D) Inform the proposed ward of the appointment of legal counsel; and

(E) Inform the proposed ward of the date and time of the hearing on the emergency guardianship; and

(5) Appoint an emergency guardian to serve until the emergency hearing, with or without prior notice to the proposed ward, if the threatened risk is so immediate and the potential harm so irreparable that any delay is unreasonable and the existence of the threatened risk and potential for irreparable harm is certified by the affidavit of a physician licensed to practice medicine under Chapter 34 of Title 43, a psychologist licensed to practice under Chapter 39 of Title 43, a physician assistant licensed under Chapter 34 of Title 43, a nurse practitioner or clinical nurse specialist in psychiatric/mental health licensed or registered under Chapter 26 of Title 43, a professional counselor licensed under Chapter 10A of Title 43, or a licensed clinical social worker. Appointment of an emergency guardian under this paragraph is not a final determination of the proposed ward’s need for a nonemergency guardian. Any emergency guardian appointed under this paragraph shall have only those powers and duties specifically enumerated in the letters of emergency guardianship, and the powers and duties shall not exceed those absolutely necessary to respond to the immediate threatened risk to the ward.

No Appeal

In Ruemker v. Ruemker, 339 Ga. App. 680 (2016), the trial court appointed an emergency guardian during the pendency of the case. That decision was challenged. In dismissing the appeal the Court cited O.C.G.A. § 29-4-70 (d), which permits the appointment of an emergency guardian for a ward pending the appeal of a probate court’s final order to superior court, specifically provides that “[t]he appointment of an emergency guardian is not appealable.”

Tags: Georgia Guardianship Code