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).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 79 Am. Jur. 2d, Welfare Laws, § 6.