O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 19-11-7 (2019)

Enforcement of support payments for dependent minor child public assistance recipients; attorney’s fees; interest on judgment; limited scope of action

✓ 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) Whenever any dependent minor child is receiving public assistance, the department may recover any sum of money due the dependent child. The action shall be brought in the name of the child for the use of the department. (b) Pursuant to the authority provided in subsection (a) of this Code section, the department may appear in any judicial proceeding on behalf of the spouse and the dependent child to enforce the parties’ right to support, including alimony as long as the provisions of subsection (d) of Code Section 19-11-6 are met. (c) Any action initiated by the department pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) of 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. (d) The court may award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party. (e) The department may collect the legal rate of interest on any judgment obtained in any support action initiated by the department. (f) Any action initiated by the department pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) of this Code section or in any action in which the department appears pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) of 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.

History

Ga. L. 1973, p. 192, § 17; Ga. L. 1976, p.

1537, § 15; Ga. L. 1985, p. 785, § 5; Ga. L. 1987, p. 186, § 3.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Limited scope of action. - In a child support recovery action against the purported father under the Child Support Recovery Act (O.C.G.A. § 19-11-1 et seq.), the superior court could not rule on the father’s request that the child be legitimated, or given his last name, or that he be given permanent and definite visitation rights. Department of Human Resources v. Brown, 213 Ga. App. 42, 443 S.E.2d 685, 1994 Ga. App. LEXIS 439 (1994). Support may not be modified in contempt proceedings. - In a con-

tempt 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 Ga. App. LEXIS 470 (2009).

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. Right to credit on child support payments for social security or other govern-

ment dependency payments made for benefit of child, 34 A.L.R.5th 447.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1985–1994 · leading case: Neal v. State, 354 S.E.2d 664 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Neal v. State, 354 S.E.2d 664 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 4× “The complaint, filed by the district attorney as authorized by OCGA § 19-11-23, was an action created primarily by OCGA § 19-11-7. It alleged that a debt had been created by the payment of public assistance under OCGA § 19-11-5 and that assignment to the department had occurred…”

Dep't of Human Resources v. Ammons, 426 S.E.2d 901 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “) OCGA § 19-11-7 (a). As the result of the termination order, appellee's child is owed no support from appellee.”

Dep't of Human Resources v. Johnson, 333 S.E.2d 845 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 4× “It would not appear that the legislature intended to make such a distinction in dealing with enforcement of the obligation of a parent to support his or her minor child.”

Miller v. Charles, 439 S.E.2d 88 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 19-11-7 (c). DHR’s sole interest in the action was to recover the sums it had expended in behalf of the child, and we look no further than OCGA § 19-7-49 (a) to determine the gist of its cause of action against Glaze: “The sole effect of the order [in the prior action…”

Cox v. Dep't of Human Resources, 330 S.E.2d 120 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “This action was brought in the name of the minor child pursuant to the Child Support Recovery Act (see OCGA § 19-11-7 (a)) to recover $6,853 of AFDC funds which were paid to appellant on behalf of the child.”

In re J. M. P., 344 S.E.2d 520 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “” The provisions of this code section together with those of OCGA § 19-11-7 have relevance to our determination of these two related cases.”

Dep't of Human Resources v. Brown, 443 S.E.2d 685 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “The court’s order contravenes OCGA § 19-11-7 (c), (f), which provides that child support recovery actions are to be limited solely to the issue of support and are to exclude issues otherwise joinable such as custody and visitation.”

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.