Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 19-9-24 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 19-9-24 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 19-9-24

TITLE 19 DOMESTIC RELATIONS

Section 9. Child Custody Proceedings, 19-9-1 through 19-9-134.

ARTICLE 2 CHILD CUSTODY INTRASTATE JURISDICTION ACT

19-9-24. Actions by physical or legal custodian not permitted in certain instances.

  1. A physical custodian shall not be allowed to maintain against the legal custodian any action for divorce, alimony, child custody, change of alimony, change of child custody, or change of visitation rights or any application for contempt of court so long as custody of the child is withheld from the legal custodian in violation of the custody order.
  2. A legal custodian shall not be allowed to maintain any action for divorce, alimony, child custody, change of alimony, change of child custody, or change of visitation rights or any application for contempt of court so long as visitation rights are withheld in violation of the custody order.

(Ga. L. 1978, p. 1957, § 5.)

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

O.C.G.A. § 19-9-24 employs "clean hands" doctrine to ensure that ends of that section are met. Stewart v. Stewart, 160 Ga. App. 463, 287 S.E.2d 378 (1981).

Conduct of custodian cannot deprive child of right to support any more than custodian can waive support for child or contract support away. Stewart v. Stewart, 160 Ga. App. 463, 287 S.E.2d 378 (1981).

If O.C.G.A. § 19-9-24 had been intended to permit parents by their own action to forfeit the child's right to support rather than merely their own, and had been intended to mean that actions of third party will dissolve the parent's duty to support the child, the legislature would have been very careful to say so. Stewart v. Stewart, 160 Ga. App. 463, 287 S.E.2d 378 (1981).

Clear object in prohibition against maintenance of "unclean" contempt actions is to prevent any action for enforcement of such orders as are mentioned in O.C.G.A. § 19-9-24, as otherwise this section would be virtually and ultimately useless in promoting the statute's purpose. Stewart v. Stewart, 160 Ga. App. 463, 287 S.E.2d 378 (1981).

Garnishment proceeding may fall within proscription of section.

- When used to collect alimony, or other awards which constitute alimony, a garnishment proceeding is no more than an action for enforcement of such awards and thus is within proscription of "any action for alimony, etc." provided in O.C.G.A. § 19-9-24. Stewart v. Stewart, 160 Ga. App. 463, 287 S.E.2d 378 (1981).

Garnishment as means of enforcing domestic monetary award.

- As means of enforcing domestic monetary award, a garnishment action is as appropriate as a contempt action. Stewart v. Stewart, 160 Ga. App. 463, 287 S.E.2d 378 (1981).

Garnishment proceeding not within section's proscription.

- Garnishment proceeding for enforcement of child support award is not included among actions listed by O.C.G.A. § 19-9-24 which may not be maintained by a legal custodian who is withholding visitation rights in violation of a court order. Child support is the right of the child and not of the child's custodian; neither wife nor civil courts can take away this right that inheres expressly in the children. Stewart v. Stewart, 160 Ga. App. 463, 287 S.E.2d 378 (1981).

Dismissal of claims following withholding of visitation.

- Having found at a hearing that a custodial parent had withheld visitation, a trial court did not err when, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 19-9-24(b), the court dismissed the contempt, visitation, and custody portions of the custodial parent's petition and, consequently, did not permit the custodial parent to present evidence on the merits of the custodial parent's dismissed claims. Avren v. Garten, 289 Ga. 186, 710 S.E.2d 130 (2011).

Court justified in changing custody only upon extreme emergency.

- To authorize the trial court to exercise the court's authority in a case where the court's authority is restricted by O.C.G.A. Art. 2, Ch. 9, T. 19, there must be an extreme emergency justifying retrieval of the child by the noncustodial party. Hutto v. Hutto, 250 Ga. 116, 296 S.E.2d 549 (1982).

No jurisdiction over custody action.

- Trial court violated the law and public policy of this state by assuming jurisdiction of an action for modification of custody brought by father who was not the legal custodian and had no right to retain physical custody once the mother as legal custodian demanded return of the child. Lightfoot v. Lightfoot, 210 Ga. App. 400, 436 S.E.2d 700 (1993).

Court lacked authority to change custody in habeas corpus proceeding.

- In habeas corpus proceeding by legal custodian seeking return of child to her custody, the trial court was without authority to allow evidence to be presented by physical custodian as to the legal custodian's fitness and in ordering a change of custody. Hutto v. Hutto, 250 Ga. 116, 296 S.E.2d 549 (1982).

No application of statute when no change in custody requested.

- O.C.G.A. § 19-9-24, precluding a change of custody if custody was being withheld from the legal custodian, did not apply because there was no evidence that the husband had asked for the children, and the wife had offered to let them go for visitation at Thanksgiving if the children did not ride with the husband's brother, who had hit one of the children. Saravia v. Mendoza, 303 Ga. App. 758, 695 S.E.2d 47 (2010).

Cited in Bentley v. McSwain, 153 Ga. App. 451, 265 S.E.2d 360 (1980); Looney v. Looney, 183 Ga. App. 233, 358 S.E.2d 642 (1987).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 17 Am. Jur. 2d, Contempt, §§ 3, 16. 24A Am. Jur. 2d, Divorce and Separation, §§ 879, 880, 885, 899 et seq.

C.J.S.

- 17 C.J.S., Contempt, § 23. 39 C.J.S., Guardian and Ward, §§ 80, 81. 617 C.J.S., Parent and Child, §§ 241, 242.

ALR.

- Removal by custodial parents of child from jurisdiction in violation of court order as justifying termination, suspension, or reduction of child support payments, 8 A.L.R.4th 1231.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 19-9-24

Total Results: 5  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Stills v. Johnson, 533 S.E.2d 695 (Ga. 2000).

Cited 46 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jul 10, 2000 | 272 Ga. 645, 2000 Fulton County D. Rep. 3553

...Cherry, 100 So.2d 385, 390 (Fla. 1958). [35] Majority opinion at 700. [36] Majority opinion at 700-701. [37] Wrightson v. Wrightson, 266 Ga. 493, 496, 467 S.E.2d 578 (1996); Prater v. Wheeler, 253 Ga. 649, 322 S.E.2d 892 (1984). [38] See OCGA §§ 19-9-21 to 19-9-24....
Copy

Avren v. Garten, 710 S.E.2d 130 (Ga. 2011).

Cited 34 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 16, 2011 | 289 Ga. 186, 2011 Fulton County D. Rep. 1466

...ther in contempt and for modification of custody, child support, and visitation. The trial court held a hearing on Mother's petition and entered a written order which dismissed and denied Mother's petition "pursuant to OCGA §§ 19-6-15, 19-9-3, and 19-9-24 and all other applicable law...." [3] Three of the four actions sought by Mother's petition were dismissable pursuant to OCGA § 19-9-24(b), which prohibits a legal guardian from bringing an action for modification of child custody or visitation rights or any application for contempt of court so long as visitation rights are withheld by the legal guardian in violation of the custody order....
...ficient to deny the noncustodial parent his or her rights of visitation." Prater v. Wheeler, 253 Ga. 649, 650, 322 S.E.2d 892 (1984). Having found at the hearing that Mother had withheld visitation, the trial court did not err when, pursuant to OCGA § 19-9-24(b), it dismissed the contempt, visitation, and custody portions of Mother's petition and, consequently, did not permit Mother to present evidence on the merits of the dismissed claims. OCGA § 19-9-24(b) does not prohibit a legal guardian who withholds visitation from bringing an action for modification of child support. "Child support is the right of the child and not of its custodian; ... The conduct of the custodian cannot deprive the child of this right to support, any more than the custodian can waive it for the child or contract it away. [Cits.] [OCGA § 19-9-24(b)] does not provide otherwise." Stewart v....
...ild custody was denied on the ground that Mother had not proven the existence of a material change in condition. See OCGA § 19-6-15(k). The trial court dismissed Mother's petition for contempt on the ground that Mother withheld visitation (see OCGA § 19-9-24(b)), and noted that it could dismiss the request for modification of child custody on the same ground....
Copy

Dallow v. Dallow, 299 Ga. 762 (Ga. 2016).

Cited 20 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Sep 12, 2016 | 791 S.E.2d 20

...e in many intricate jurisdictional analyses of this sort will soon begin to dissipate). We can now turn to Father’s enumerations. 17 3. Father contends first that OCGA §§ 19-9-23 and 19-9-24 required the trial court to dismiss Mother’s October 2014 complaint for modification of his visitation rights....
...73, 76 (658 SE2d 769) (2008) (“‘[T]here is no such thing as a default judgment on the pleadings.’” (citation omitted)). 18 374-375 (245 SE2d 648) (1978) (plurality opinion). The CCIJA is codified at OCGA §§ 19-9-20 to 19-9-24.4 (b) We first consider OCGA § 19-9-23.5 Subsection (a) requires that any complaint seeking to change which parent has the majority of parenting time must be brought as a separate action in that primary physical custodi...
...en a child custody enforcement action by the other parent is pending. Thus, § 19-9-23 did not require the trial court to grant Father’s motion to dismiss. 22 (c) We turn next to OCGA § 19-9-24.8 Father relies on subsection (b), which says that the primary physical custodian shall not be allowed to “maintain” a civil action for, among other things, change of visitation rights for “so long as visit...
...at 117 (holding that it was error to allow a father to maintain an action for change of custody “even though he was withholding custody of the child from the mother . . . in violation of the custody order”). In his brief to this Court, Father asserts that the trial court found that 8 OCGA § 19-9-24 says in full: (a) A physical custodian shall not be allowed to maintain against the legal custodian any action for divorce, alimony, child custody, change of alimony, change of child custody, or ch...
...We have some doubt about our indication in Avren that past instances of withholding, rather than withholding of custody or visitation at the time that the trial court is deciding how to proceed in the newly filed action, would bar the new action under OCGA § 19-9-24 (b)....
...month period, the mother admitted impeding visitation, and “the trial court found at the hearing that [the mother] had withheld visitation.” Avren, 289 Ga. at 187. 24 complaint pursuant to OCGA § 19-9-24 (b). 4....
Copy

Douglas v. Douglas, 678 S.E.2d 904 (Ga. 2009).

Cited 9 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 15, 2009 | 285 Ga. 548, 2009 Fulton County D. Rep. 2001

...the father, who had physical custody. The habeas court exercised its discretion, considered the best interests of the child and awarded custody to the father. Hutto v. Hutto, supra at 117, 296 S.E.2d 549. This Court reversed, noting that *907 [OCGA § 19-9-24(a)] provides that in no case, whether by complaint or by counterclaim in response to a habeas petition, shall the physical custodian ......
Copy

Entrekin v. Friedman, 294 Ga. 429 (Ga. 2014).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jan 21, 2014 | 754 S.E.2d 14, 214 Fulton County D. Rep. 92

...Such an expression cannot reasonably be understood to amount to a definitive and binding directive as to custody of the child upon the death of 2 19-9-2. But it does not follow that Friedman was barred from seeking custody for herself. By its plain terms, OCGA § 19-9-24 (a) applies only when custody of a child is withheld “in violation of [a] custody order.” Here, the only existing “custody order” was the final decree of divorce, and it did not award physical custody of the child to Entrekin....