Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 19-11-6 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 19-11-6 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 19-11-6

TITLE 19 DOMESTIC RELATIONS

Section 11. Enforcement of Duty of Support, 19-11-1 through 19-11-191.

ARTICLE 1 CHILD SUPPORT RECOVERY ACT

19-11-6. (For effective date, see note.) Enforcement of child support payments and alimony for public assistance recipients.

  1. By accepting public assistance for or on behalf of a child or children, including foster care maintenance payments made pursuant to Title IV-E of the federal Social Security Act, the recipient shall be deemed to have made an assignment to the department of the right to any child support owed for the child. The department shall be subrogated to the right of the child or children or the person having custody to initiate any support action existing under the laws of this state and to recover any payments ordered by the courts of this or any other state. Amounts collected by the department shall be distributed and deposited by the department in conformity with law.
  2. Whenever a family for whom child support services have been provided ceases to receive public assistance, including medical assistance, the department shall continue to provide services and collect such support payments from the absent parent in accordance with standards prescribed pursuant to the federal Social Security Act.
  3. The department shall accept applications for child support services from any proper party or person notwithstanding the fact that the child or children do not receive public assistance. When made, this application to the department shall constitute an assignment of the right to support to the department and the proceeds of any collections resulting from such application shall be distributed in accordance with the standards prescribed in the federal Social Security Act.
  4. The department shall accept applications for alimony enforcement services from any proper party or person if the right to alimony has been assigned to the department. The application for enforcement shall apply only to alimony while there is a court order for alimony, while the dependent child is living with the spouse or former spouse, and while a child support obligation is also being enforced by the department.
  5. The department shall accept applications for IV-D services from noncustodial parent obligors. The department, by virtue of the acceptance of such applications for IV-D services, is authorized to take any action allowed by this chapter including, but not limited to, the review and modification of support awards, whether such awards are modified upward or downward, pursuant to Code Section 19-11-12. The proceeds of any collections resulting from such applications shall be distributed in accordance with the standards prescribed in the federal Social Security Act.
  6. (For effective date, see note.) The department shall be authorized to charge the obligor a federal Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 fee of $35.00 for each case. Such fee shall only apply to an obligor when the obligee has never received public assistance payments pursuant to Title IV-A or Title IV-E of the federal Social Security Act. The department shall retain such fee and collect such fee through income withholding, as well as by any other enforcement remedy available to the entity within the department authorized to enforce a duty of support.

(Ga. L. 1973, p. 192, § 5; Ga. L. 1976, p. 1537, § 5; Ga. L. 1982, p. 1207, §§ 1, 4; Ga. L. 1985, p. 785, § 4; Ga. L. 1987, p. 186, § 2; Ga. L. 1992, p. 1833, § 4; Ga. L. 2003, p. 415, §§ 2, 3; Ga. L. 2007, p. 667, § 1/SB 42; Ga. L. 2017, p. 646, § 1-17/SB 137; Ga. L. 2018, p. 937, § 2-1/SB 427.)

Delayed effective date.

- Subsection (f), as set out above, becomes effective October 1, 2018. For version of subsection (f) in effect until October 1, 2018, see the 2018 amendment note.

The 2017 amendment, effective October 1, 2017, substituted the present provisions of subsection (f) for the former provisions of subsections (f) and (g), which read: "(f) The department shall be authorized to charge the obligee a federal Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 fee of $12.00 to be paid at the rate of $1.00 per month after the IV-D agency has collected $500.00 of child support annually for each case. The department shall retain such fee and deduct such fee from child support collections before disbursement to the obligee. Such fee shall only apply to an obligee who has never received public assistance payments pursuant to Title IV-A or Title IV-E of the federal Social Security Act.

"(g) The department shall be authorized to charge the obligor a federal Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 fee of $13.00 to be paid in 12 monthly installments after the IV-D agency has collected $500.00 of child support annually for each case. Such fee shall only apply to an obligor when the obligee has never received public assistance payments pursuant to Title IV-A or Title IV-E of the federal Social Security Act. The department shall retain such fee and collect such fee through income withholding, as well as by any other enforcement remedy available to the IV-D agency responsible for child support enforcement."

The 2018 amendment, effective October 1, 2018, substituted "$35.00" for "$25.00" in the first sentence of subsection (f).

Editor's notes.

- As enacted, Ga. L. 1987, p. 186, § 5, not codified by the General Assembly, provided that the amendment of this Code section by that Act would apply with respect to divorce decrees entered on or after July 1, 1987. However, Section 2 of Ga. L. 1987, p. 1114, not codified by the General Assembly, rewrote Section 5 of Ga. L. 1987, p. 186, to provide that the amendment of this Code section by that latter Act would apply to process served on or after July 1, 1987 in both pending and new proceedings.

U.S. Code.

- Title IV-A of the federal Social Security Act, referred to in this Code section, is codified at 42 U.S.C. § 601 et seq.

Title IV-E of the federal Social Security Act, referred to in this Code section, is codified at 42 U.S.C. § 670 et seq.

Law reviews.

- For note on 1992 amendment of this Code section, see 9 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 234 (1992).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Applicability of subsection (a).

- In an action by the Department of Human Resources for recovery of child support from the noncustodial parent, subsection (a) of O.C.G.A. § 19-11-6 would not be applicable if the plaintiff expressly waived any right to recover public assistance paid in the past and there was no evidence of any continuing payments to the custodial parent. Georgia Dep't of Human Resources v. Smith, 237 Ga. App. 883, 517 S.E.2d 111 (1999).

Impact of 2003 amendment.

- In the 2003 amendments to the Child Support Recovery Act, O.C.G.A. § 19-11-1 et seq., the General Assembly unambiguously broadened the legislature's intent, expressly permitting the Department of Human Resources to accept applications for child support services from non-custodial parents and to review, and even to seek downward modifications of, support awards under the provisions of the Act. Falkenberry v. Taylor, 278 Ga. 842, 607 S.E.2d 567 (2005).

State has a real interest in recovering payments made by the state, which would not have been made had a responsible parent lived up to that party's duty; and the purpose of O.C.G.A. §§ 19-11-6 and19-11-8 is to secure that reimbursement. Department of Human Resources v. Bagley, 240 Ga. 306, 240 S.E.2d 867 (1977).

Extent of reimbursement to which state is entitled.

- To the extent that the state paid public assistance on behalf of a child which would not have been made had the responsible parent been current in paying the parent's support payments, the state is entitled under assignment provided for in Ga. L. 1966, p. 1537, § 5 (see now O.C.G.A. § 19-11-6) to be reimbursed for the state's excess payments out of support payments for that child recovered from the responsible parent, upon appropriate proof of the extent of the state's claim. This right continues even if state fails to perform the state's duty to initiate the action under Ga. L. 1966, p. 1537, § 6 (see now O.C.G.A. § 19-11-8). Department of Human Resources v. Bagley, 240 Ga. 306, 240 S.E.2d 867 (1977).

Action on behalf of child not receiving public assistance.

- Department of Human Resources is authorized to file modification actions on behalf of children who do not receive public assistance only when the child's need for additional support can be shown; the department is not authorized to seek modification of support on behalf of a child not receiving public assistance solely on the basis of a change in either parent's financial circumstances. Allen v. Georgia Dep't of Human Resources, 262 Ga. 521, 423 S.E.2d 383 (1992).

Department of Human Resources was the proper party to appeal an order in a legitimation proceeding modifying a child support award since the Department's duty to enforce child support payments continues after public assistance ceases. Department of Human Resources v. Jones, 215 Ga. App. 322, 450 S.E.2d 339 (1994).

Loss of right to recovery by department for failure to participate in action.

- Should Department of Human Resources fail to actively participate when joined by a custodial parent in an action to recover support payments, the Department may lose the Department's claim for reimbursement. Department of Human Resources v. Bagley, 240 Ga. 306, 240 S.E.2d 867 (1977).

Standing of department in claim against parent.

- Even though a divorce decree between the mother and alleged father stated that the parties had no minor children, the Department of Human Resources was not collaterally estopped from asserting a claim for child support benefits against the alleged father on behalf of the child. Department of Human Resources v. Fleeman, 263 Ga. 756, 439 S.E.2d 474 (1994).

Divorce decree incorporating an agreement between husband and wife that the husband did not father a child did not bind the child and, thus, the Department of Human Resources, acting on the child's behalf, was not barred from pursuing a paternity and child support action against the husband. Department of Human Resources v. Money, 222 Ga. App. 149, 473 S.E.2d 200 (1996).

State was entitled to seek repayment from the father of public assistance made to the mother on behalf of her child when the father acknowledged paternity, and even though the mother opposed the state's collection efforts, as the recipient of public assistance she assigned her right to child support to the state. Department of Human Resources v. Woodruff, 234 Ga. App. 513, 507 S.E.2d 249 (1998).

Conditions under

§ 19-6-10 not met meant DHR could not bring action. - Trial court erred in ruling that the Georgia Department of Human Services could not bring an action under O.C.G.A. § 19-11-6(a) on behalf of a child to secure a support award under the provisions of O.C.G.A. § 19-6-10 because there was no dispute that the mother and the father lived separately and that there was no pending divorce action, conditions required under § 19-6-10. Ga. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Wright, 293 Ga. 330, 745 S.E.2d 628 (2013).

Custodial parent joining department in action.

- When a custodial parent is forced to bring an action to recover support payments by failure or refusal of the state to do so, the proper procedure is for custodian to join the Department of Human Resources as plaintiff to suit. Department of Human Resources v. Bagley, 240 Ga. 306, 240 S.E.2d 867 (1977).

Effect of custody agreement on obligation to department.

- Custody agreement between a father and his children's maternal grandmother did not relieve the father of any obligation to reimburse the Department of Human Resources for public assistance benefits payments made on behalf of his children. Department of Human Resources v. Prince, 198 Ga. App. 329, 401 S.E.2d 342 (1991).

Department's claim for reimbursement of public assistance paid to child support obligee in bankruptcy case.

- Under O.C.G.A. § 19-11-6(a), a parent who accepted public assistance on behalf of a child was deemed to have assigned to the Department of Human Resources the right to child support owed to the parent by a Chapter 13 debtor, and the assignment occurred by operation of law when the Department undertook to collect money from the debtor; therefore, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(7)(A), the Department's claim for reimbursement of the public assistance the Department paid was not entitled to priority status. Sys. & Servs. Techs. v. Jordan (In re Jordan), Bankr. (Bankr. S.D. Ga. Sept. 27, 2000).

Department joined in action must pay costs and fees.

- When custodial parent is forced to bring action to recover support payments by failure or refusal of the state to do so, the Department of Human Resources may recover its reimbursement on condition that the department agrees to reimburse the custodial parent for the costs of bringing the action, including reasonable attorney fees if approved by the court. Department of Human Resources v. Bagley, 240 Ga. 306, 240 S.E.2d 867 (1977).

Parent may cross-claim against Department of Human Resources for decision of what sums are due to Department for reimbursement, if there is a dispute. Department of Human Resources v. Bagley, 240 Ga. 306, 240 S.E.2d 867 (1977).

Income deduction order.

- When the Department of Human Resources petitioned to modify a divorce decree so that the former husband's child support payments would be made directly to the child support receiver, the issuance of an income deduction order was required based on the former wife's receipt of public assistance. Department of Human Resources v. Brandenburg, 211 Ga. App. 715, 440 S.E.2d 498 (1994), overruled on other grounds, Department of Human Servs. v. Offutt, 217 Ga. App. 823, 459 S.E.2d 597 (1995).

Modification and domestication of foreign decree.

- Department of Human Resources was entitled to seek domestication of a foreign divorce decree in the source action in which modification of the decree was sought. Allen v. Georgia Dep't of Human Resources, 262 Ga. 521, 423 S.E.2d 383 (1992).

Support may not be modified in contempt proceedings.

- In a contempt proceeding brought by the Georgia Department of Human Resources, the trial court erred in modifying a parent's child support obligation and in forgiving a portion of the arrearage because the court lacked authority to modify support orders in contempt proceedings, and O.C.G.A. § 19-6-17(e)(1)-(3) precluded retroactive modification of child support. Ga. Dep't of Human Res. v. Gamble, 297 Ga. App. 509, 677 S.E.2d 713 (2009).

Enforcement of motion to compel genetic testing.

- Claims of the Department of Human Resources against a putative father for reimbursement of public assistance and future support and a contempt complaint for the father's failure to appear for a court-ordered paternity test were not barred by the equitable doctrine of laches. Department of Human Resources v. Mitchell, 232 Ga. App. 560, 501 S.E.2d 508 (1998).

Recovery from obligor who is in bankruptcy.

- When the custodial parent accepted public assistance under O.C.G.A. § 19-11-6(a), and the debtor obligor failed to comply with a consent contempt order to make payments, the claim for reimbursement to the state was a non-contingent, unsecured nonpriority claim payable by the chapter 13 trustee under 11 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(2). Ga Dep't of Human Res. of Child Support Res. v. Spears (In re Spears), Bankr. (Bankr. S.D. Ga. Jan. 8, 2008).

Cited in Owens v. Griggs, 146 Ga. App. 478, 246 S.E.2d 480 (1978); Young v. Department of Human Resources, 148 Ga. App. 518, 251 S.E.2d 578 (1978); Burns v. Swinney, 168 Ga. App. 902, 310 S.E.2d 733 (1983); Cox v. Cox ex rel. State Dep't of Human Resources, 255 Ga. 6, 334 S.E.2d 683 (1985); Neal v. State, 182 Ga. App. 37, 354 S.E.2d 664 (1987); Department of Human Resources v. Offutt, 217 Ga. App. 823, 459 S.E.2d 597 (1995).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 79 Am. Jur. 2d, Welfare Laws, § 6.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 19-11-6

Total Results: 10  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Dep't of Human Resources v. Fleeman, 439 S.E.2d 474 (Ga. 1994).

Cited 29 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jan 31, 1994 | 263 Ga. 756, 94 Fulton County D. Rep. 317

...In deciding whether DHR may pursue its action against Fleeman, we look first to the nature of DHR's claims in this case, and second to the application of collateral estoppel, or other defenses, to those claims. 1. DHR, alleging Fleeman was the child's father, cited §§ 19-11-5 and 19-11-6 (a) of the Child Support Recovery Act as the basis for its claims against Fleeman for reimbursement for amounts paid on the child's behalf, and for an order establishing Fleeman's future support obligations....
...the recipient shall be deemed to have made an assignment to the department of the right to any child support owed for the child. The department shall be subrogated to the right of the child or children or the person having custody to initiate any support action existing under the laws of this state .... OCGA § 19-11-6 (a). 2. (a) DHR is not collaterally estopped from asserting a claim under OCGA § 19-11-6 (a) against Fleeman....
...The Court of Appeals correctly held that the mother is collaterally estopped, based on the divorce decree, from claiming Fleeman is the child's father. Thus, to the extent DHR "stands in the mother's *758 shoes" in asserting that claim, it is in privity with her and is likewise barred. However, OCGA § 19-11-6 (a) provides that DHR is subrogated to "the right of the child ......
...The child was not a party to or represented in the divorce proceeding, and is not a privy to either of the parties. Because the child is not bound by the provisions of the divorce decree, collateral estoppel does not bar DHR in its claim under OCGA § 19-11-6 (a) insofar as DHR is pursuing that claim on the child's behalf....
Copy

Butler v. Turner, 555 S.E.2d 427 (Ga. 2001).

Cited 22 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 19, 2001 | 274 Ga. 566, 2001 Fulton County D. Rep. 3481

...386, 388(1), 439 S.E.2d 88 (1993). Under this definition, Butler plainly was not a privy of the DHR in the child support recovery action. The DHR initiated the action against Turner after Butler was required to assign her rights to the DHR. See OCGA § 19-11-6....
Copy

Dep't of Human Resources v. Allison, 575 S.E.2d 876 (Ga. 2003).

Cited 18 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jan 13, 2003 | 276 Ga. 175, 2003 Fulton County D. Rep. 132

...ng such prior involvement in this case. Allen is not direct authority for the trial court's ruling that DHR lacks standing. That case involved an attempt by DHR, in response to an application for child support enforcement services pursuant to OCGA §§ 19-11-6(c) and 19-11-8(b), to increase the amount of support for a child who was not receiving public assistance....
...ase the amount of support. Proof of the child's need for additional support clearly is not relevant to DHR's authority to seek a downward modification. DHR is not limited to representing parents whose children are receiving public assistance. OCGA §§ 19-11-6(c) and 19-11-8(b), enacted in response to Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C....
...6, 423 S.E.2d 383. Obviously, that purpose is not served by allowing DHR to *878 seek reductions in child support. Instead, the probability that the child will need public assistance increases if parental support decreases. If express provisions such as OCGA §§ 19-11-6 and 19-11-8 were deemed necessary to allow DHR to provide representation to the custodial parent of a child not on welfare, then a comparable express provision is surely necessary to allow DHR to represent the non-custodial parent of such a child. DHR contends that OCGA § 19-11-12 constitutes such a provision. Unlike OCGA §§ 19-11-6 and 19-11-8, OCGA § 19-11-12 "was enacted as part of the Child Support Recovery Act [cit.] in response to a federal mandate requiring each State to establish procedures for its child support agency to review and adjust certain child support orders....
...y to every child support order without regard to prior involvement of the IV-D agency. OCGA § 19-11-12 does not authorize the agency to review a child support order unless it had some pre-existing involvement in obtaining the order pursuant to OCGA § 19-11-6 or § 19-11-8....
...7, 423 S.E.2d 383. Even the wealthiest parent of the richest child could simply turn to DHR, regardless of the absence of any previous involvement by that agency, and request legal representation. In the absence of an express statute comparable to OCGA §§ 19-11-6(c) and 19-11-8(b), DHR's authority to bring a downward modification action under OCGA § 19-11-12 is limited to cases in which there is a prior court order which establishes or enforces a child support obligation and which DHR participated in obtaining....
Copy

Allen v. Georgia Dep't of Human Resources, 423 S.E.2d 383 (Ga. 1992).

Cited 18 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 16, 1992 | 262 Ga. 521

...the ability to pay the sum of $300 per month as child support at this time. After moving to Georgia following her divorce, Jean Allen applied to the Georgia Department of Human Resources (DHR) for child support enforcement services, pursuant to OCGA § 19-11-6....
...Nevertheless, for the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court's denial of appellant's motion to dismiss. First, the DHR is not only authorized, but is required to accept applications from a custodian of a minor child who is not a recipient of public assistance. OCGA § 19-11-8 (b). See also OCGA § 19-11-6 (c)....
...ort and with making sure that the proper amount of money is collected and disbursed. Until today, the Child Support Recovery Act was a powerful tool for any child who needed it. Today, for many of our state's children, it is impotent. NOTES [1] OCGA § 19-11-6 provides, in relevant part: (c) The [DHR] shall accept applications for child support enforcement services from any proper party or person notwithstanding the fact that the child or children do not receive public assistance....
...f this Code section shall be limited solely to the issue of support and shall exclude issues of visitation, custody, property settlement, or other similar matters otherwise joinable by the parties. [3] In addition, it should be noted that under OCGA § 19-11-6 (c) (see footnote 1, supra), an application to the DHR for child support enforcement services "constitute[s] an assignment of the right to support to the [DHR]." After such an application has been filed, the DHR, not the custodial parent, is the proper party to file a modification action....
Copy

Kelley v. Dep't of Human Resources, 498 S.E.2d 741 (Ga. 1998).

Cited 12 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Apr 13, 1998 | 269 Ga. 384, 98 Fulton County D. Rep. 1263, 98 FCDR 1263

...XI. [9] OCGA § 19-6-19(a). [10] OCGA § 19-11-1, et seq. [11] See OCGA §§ 19-11-12(b); 42 USC § 666(a). [12] Chrysler Corp. v. Batten, 264 Ga. 723, 450 S.E.2d 208 (1994). [13] OCGA § 19-11-12(d). [14] OCGA § 19-11-22. [15] See OCGA § 19-11-5, 19-11-6(a), (c)....
Copy

Dep't of Human Resources Ex Rel. Holland v. Holland, 440 S.E.2d 9 (Ga. 1994).

Cited 12 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 21, 1994 | 263 Ga. 885, 94 Fulton County D. Rep. 638

...That the child is not a party to the divorce decree is further established by our recent decision in Dept. of Human Resources v. Fleeman, 263 Ga. 756 (439 SE2d 474) (1994). We held there, in the context of an action brought by DHR pursuant to OCGA § 19-11-6 (a) to recover support on behalf of a child who had received public assistance, that the "child was not a party to or represented in the divorce proceeding, and is not a privy to either of the parties." Id. at 758. That holding should apply with equal force to an action, such as the present action, brought pursuant to the authority in OCGA § 19-11-6 (c), which permits DHR to "accept applications for child support enforcement services from any proper party or person notwithstanding the fact that the child or children do not receive public assistance." By referring to "a proper party or...
Copy

Georgia Dep't of Human Resources v. Word, 265 Ga. 461 (Ga. 1995).

Cited 8 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 12, 1995 | 458 S.E.2d 110

...provides notice to the party required to pay support, and to that party's employer, and an opportunity for both to request a hearing to contest the enforcement of the income deduction order under certain circumstances. OCGA § 19-6-33. [2] DHR's involvement under OCGA § 19-11-6 results either from its payment of public assistance on behalf of the child, or a party's application to DHR for assistance in collection of child support....
Copy

Cox v. Dep't of Human Resources, 334 S.E.2d 683 (Ga. 1985).

Cited 5 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 1, 1985 | 255 Ga. 6

...conclusion that the legislature intended for the DHR to recover public assistance from a parent, or parents, who is not only able to provide support, but whose continued absence from the home has resulted in the child's dependent condition. [5] OCGA § 19-11-6 (a) provides that the acceptance of public assistance constitutes an assignment by the recipient to the DHR "of the right to any child support owed for the child." [6] Subsection (b) of § 19-11-6 provides that if the grant of public assistance ceases, the DHR "may continue to collect such support payments from the absent parent." [7] (Emphasis supplied.) Under OCGA § 19-11-9 the legislature requires the DHR to "attempt to locate absent parents" in order to determine their child support obligations....
...If the DHR determines the parent is so able, it is authorized to take appropriate action to ensure that the parent supports the child. OCGA § 19-11-8. [6] We note that the DHR's petition against Ms. Cox maintains that by accepting public assistance on behalf of her minor child, Cox has, pursuant to OCGA § 19-11-6, assigned to the DHR all her legal remedies against herself for past child support....
..." (Emphasis supplied.) [9] DHR v. Bagley, 240 Ga. 306 (240 SE2d 867) (1977), cited by the respondent, and Young v. DHR, 148 Ga. App. 518 (251 SE2d 578) (1978), cited by the Court of Appeals, are distinguishable. In Bagley, this court acknowledged that pursuant to OCGA § 19-11-6 the DHR is subrogated to any child support rights a custodial parent who receives child support might have....
Copy

Falkenberry v. Taylor, 607 S.E.2d 567 (Ga. 2005).

Cited 3 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jan 10, 2005 | 278 Ga. 842, 2005 Fulton County D. Rep. 130

...tent, expressly permitting DHR to accept applications for child support services from non-custodial parents and to review, and even to seek downward modifications of, support awards under the provisions of the Act, including OCGA § 19-11-12. OCGA §§ 19-11-6(e), *569 19-11-8(c). Furthermore, OCGA §§ 19-11-6 and 19-11-8 must be read in conjunction with OCGA § 19-11-12, which "sets forth the review procedures to be followed by DHR when reviewing for possible modification both administratively and judicially imposed child support orders....
Copy

Georgia Dep't of Human Servs. v. Wright, 293 Ga. 330 (Ga. 2013).

Cited 2 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jul 1, 2013 | 745 S.E.2d 628, 2013 Fulton County D. Rep. 2042

...ing any child support recovery. However, DHS’s statutory authority to seek child support recovery is not dependent on a prior court order designating a “custodial parent.” DHS is proceeding under an assignment of rights to child support. OCGA § 19-11-6.1 And, for Mother to file a petition for an award *331of child support from Father under OCGA § 19-6-10,2 there is no need for a court to first designate her as the “custodial parent”; the statute contains no such requirement....
...281 (319 SE2d 455) (1984) (wife secured separate maintenance award three years before filing for divorce). As Mother has accepted public assistance on behalf of the child, she has “made an assignment to [DHS] of the right to any child support owed for the child.” OCGA § 19-11-6 (a) (Emphasis supplied). Further, under OCGA § 19-11-6 (a), DHS is “subrogated to the right of the child or children or the person *332having custody to initiate any support action existing under the laws of this state and to recover any payments ordered by the courts of this or any other state.” Id. (Emphasis supplied.) See Department of Human Resources v. Woodruff, 234 Ga. App. 513 (507 SE2d 249) (1998). The assignment under OCGA § 19-11-6 (a) thus necessarily includes an assignment of Mother’s right to initiate an action under OCGA § 19-6-10. Decided July 1, 2013. Samuel S....
...Wright, pro se. There is no dispute that Mother and Father are living separately and that there is no pending action for divorce, conditions set forth in OCGA § 19-6-10. Accordingly, the trial court erred in ruling that DHS could not bring an action under OCGA § 19-11-6 (a) on behalf of the child to secure a support award pursuant to the provisions of OCGA § 19-6-10. Judgment reversed. All the Justices concur. OCGA § 19-11-6 reads: (a) By accepting public assistance for or on behalf of a child or children, including foster care maintenance payments made pursuant to Title IV-E of the federal Social Security Act, the recipient shall be deemed to have made an assignment to the department of the right to any child support owed for the child....