O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 19-11-114 (2019)

Continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify support order

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
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.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A tribunal in Georgia that has issued a child support order consistent with the law of Georgia has and shall exercise continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify its child support order if the order is the controlling order and:

(1) At the time of the filing of a request for modification Georgia is the residence of the obligor, the individual obligee, or the child for whose benefit the support order is issued; or

(2) Even if Georgia is not the residence of the obligor, the individual obligee, or the child for whose benefit the support order is issued, the parties consent in a record or in open court that the tribunal of Georgia may continue to exercise jurisdiction to modify its order.

(b) A tribunal in Georgia that has issued a child support order consistent with the law of Georgia may not exercise continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify the order if:

(1) All of the parties who are individuals file consent in a record with the tribunal of Georgia that a tribunal of another state that has jurisdiction over at least one of the parties who is an individual or that is located in the state of residence of the child may modify the order and assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction; or

(2) Its order is not the controlling order.

(c) If a tribunal of another state has issued a child support order pursuant to this article or a law substantially similar to this article which modifies a child support order of a tribunal of Georgia, tribunals of Georgia shall recognize the continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal of the other state.

(d) A tribunal of Georgia that lacks continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify a child support order may serve as an initiating tribunal to request a tribunal of another state to modify a support order issued in that state.

(e) A temporary support order issued ex parte or pending resolution of a jurisdictional conflict does not create continuing, exclusive jurisdiction in the issuing tribunal.

History

Code 1981, § 19-11-114, enacted by Ga.

L. 1997, p. 1613, § 33; Ga. L. 2013, p. 705, § 1/SB 193.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Jurisdiction over child support arrearages. - Georgia Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, O.C.G.A. § 19-11-100 et seq., did not deprive a trial court of jurisdiction over the issue of child support arrearages based upon a prior-filed United Kingdom enforcement proceeding. Continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the child support provisions of the decree

existed in the trial court because the trial court issued the decree, the mother and the child resided in Georgia, and no evidence existed that the parents had filed written consents to allow the tribunal of another state to assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction. Baars v. Freeman, 288 Ga. 835, 708 S.E.2d 273, 2011 Ga. LEXIS 246 (2011).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1999–2018 · leading case: BAARS v. Freeman, 708 S.E.2d 273 (Ga. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
BAARS v. Freeman, 708 S.E.2d 273 (Ga. 2011). · cites it 6× “OCGA § 19-11-114 (a). Continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the child support provisions of the decree exists in the trial court since the trial court issued the decree, Baars and the child reside in Georgia, and no evidence exists that Baars and Freeman have filed written…”
In re the Marriage of Scanlon, 110 Wash. App. 682 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “21 RCW; Ga. Code Ann. § 19-11-110 to -118. RCW 26.”
Hoehn v. Hoehn, 716 N.E.2d 479 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). “And see Ga.Code Ann. § 19-11-114(b) (Georgia court issuing a child support order may not exercise its continuing jurisdiction to modify the order if the order has been modified by a tribunal of another state pursuant to UIFSA).”
OCS/Pappas v. O'Brien & Bernheim v. Pappas, 2013 VT 11 (Vt. 2013). “” See Ga. Code Ann. §§ 19-11-114 , 19-11-171 (1997).”
Swanson v. Hernandez, 544 S.W.3d 315 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018). “4 The child's home state of Georgia currently has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over this order, see Ga. Code Ann. §§ 19-11-114 (a)(1), 19-11-170(a) (2013), N.”
— 19-11-114(b) — 1 case
Hoehn v. Hoehn, 716 N.E.2d 479 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). “And see Ga.Code Ann. § 19-11-114(b) (Georgia court issuing a child support order may not exercise its continuing jurisdiction to modify the order if the order has been modified by a tribunal of another state pursuant to UIFSA).”
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.