O.C.G.A.
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
This article shall be known and may be cited as the “Child Support Recovery Act.”
History
Ga. L. 1973, p. 192, § 1.
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Modification procedure not dependent upon public assistance. - When the Department of Human Resources (DHR) petitions the superior court to adopt its recommendation, the court is not required to find a need for additional support but, without regard to whether a child is receiving public assistance, may increase child support based solely on a significant inconsistency between an existing order and the amount which would result from application of the child support guidelines; the Child Support Recovery Act, O.C.G.A. § 19-11-1 et seq., does not contain any basis for continuing to distinguish between the procedure available when the child is receiving public assistance and that which is available in the absence of any such assistance. The trial court erred in concluding that evidence of the need for additional support was necessary and that DHR lacked standing, and in failing to apply child support guidelines and to justify any departure therefrom. Falkenberry v. Taylor, 278 Ga. 842, 607 S.E.2d 567, 2005 Ga. LEXIS 23 (2005). Public assistance is nondistinguishing factor. - Child Support Recov-
ery Act, O.C.G.A. § 19-11-1 et seq., does not contain any basis for continuing to distinguish between the procedure available when a child is receiving public assistance and that which is available in the absence of any such assistance. Falkenberry v. Taylor, 278 Ga. 842, 607 S.E.2d 567, 2005 Ga. LEXIS 23 (2005). Same procedure available when child not receiving public assistance. - In a child support modification action, the trial court erred in concluding that evidence of the need for additional support was necessary and that the Department of Human Resources (DHR) lacked standing to file a modification action on behalf of a child not receiving public assistance unless it could show the child’s need for additional support; by express statutory amendment, the General Assembly no longer reserved for the private bar those modification actions which involved children who did not receive public assistance and needed no additional support, but whose court-ordered provider enjoyed an enhanced financial status. Falkenberry v. Taylor, 278 Ga. 842, 607 S.E.2d 567, 2005 Ga. LEXIS 23 (2005).
OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Applicability of alternative dispute resolution program fees to child support recovery actions. - Civil actions brought pursuant to the Child Support Recovery Act, O.C.G.A. § 19-11-1 et seq., are subject to the fee imposed under O.C.G.A. § 15-23-7 to support alternative dispute resolution programs, but the
state, the state’s agencies, and political subdivisions should not be compelled to make advance payment of the fee which should ordinarily be collected from the child support obligor upon the conclusion of the action. 1994 Op. Att’y Gen. No. U94-7.
RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. Criminal responsibility for abandonment or nonsupport of children who are being cared for by charitable institution, 24 A.L.R. 1075.
Liability of father for retroactive child support on judicial determination of paternity, 87 A.L.R.5th 361.
Notes of Decisions
Cox v. Dep't of Human Resources, 334 S.E.2d 683 (Ga. 1985).
· cites it 8× “When petitioner received $7,500 as the named beneficiary of a life insurance policy, she became disqualified to receive further AFDC benefits. [1] The DHR then initiated this action on behalf of the minor child against petitioner, pursuant to the Child Support Recovery Act, OCGA…”
Dep't of Human Resources v. Carlton, 329 S.E.2d 181 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 6× “The action was brought pursuant to the Child Support Recovery Act, OCGA § 19-11-1 et seq. Carlton answered and moved to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
Fleeman v. Dep't of Human Resources, 430 S.E.2d 135 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 4× “Appellee has asserted claims against appellant under two provisions of the Child Support Recovery Act (the "Act") (OCGA § 19-11-1 et seq.), OCGA §§ 19-11-5 and 19-11-6 (a).”
Dep't of Human Resources v. Ammons, 426 S.E.2d 901 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 4× “Pursuant to OCGA § 19-11-1 et seq., DHR brought the instant action, seeking to recover the amount of those benefits from appellee.”
Dep't of Human Resources v. Mitchell, 501 S.E.2d 508 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 4× “On April 5, 1995, the Department of Human Resources (“DHR”) filed a petition pursuant to OCGA § 19-11-1 et seq. alleging that the appellee-defendant, Eldridge F.”
Dep't of Human Resources v. Fleeman, 439 S.E.2d 474 (Ga. 1994).
· cites it 2× “. prior to or after the marriage.” After the divorce, the mother applied for, and received, Aid To Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits on behalf of the minor child, and DHR commenced this action against Fleeman.”
Weaver v. Chester, 393 S.E.2d 715 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 2× “The Georgia Department of Human Resources (DHR) sued appellee Ronnie Chester pursuant to the Child Support Recovery Act, OCGA § 19-11-1 et seq., seeking reimbursement for certain public assistance benefits which it had paid to the appellant, Paula A.”
Collins v. Collins, 324 S.E.2d 475 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 2× “On November 10, 1981, pursuant to OCGA § 19-11-1 et seq., the Department commenced this action against the appellee, seeking to recover the amount of public assistance received by Teresa Moselander on behalf of Amanda.”
Burns v. Swinney, 314 S.E.2d 440 (Ga. 1984).
· cites it 2× “Several provisions of the Child Support Recovery Act, OCGA § 19-11-1 et seq. (Code Ann. § 99-901b), are pertinent here.”
Phillips v. Brown, 426 S.E.2d 866 (Ga. 1993).
· cites it 2× “The Georgia Department of Human Resources (DHR) sued appellant Timothy Phillips pursuant to the Child Support Recovery Act, OCGA § 19-11-1 et seq., seeking reimbursement for certain public assistance benefits which it had paid for the support of Tameka Brown, the minor child…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.