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.
(a) Any order of support of a child entered or modified on or after July 1, 1985, shall contain the following provision: “Whenever, in violation of the terms of this order there shall have been a failure to make the support payments due hereunder so that the amount unpaid is equal to or greater than the amount payable for one month, the payments required to be made may be collected by the process of continuing garnishment for support.” (b) All cases involving orders of support of a child or spouse being enforced by the entity within the Department of Human Services and its contractors that are authorized to enforce support orders shall be subject to income deduction orders as set forth in Code Sections 19-6-32 through 19-6-33.1.
History
Code 1981, § 19-6-30, enacted by Ga. L. 1985, p. 785, § 3; Ga. L. 1989, p. 861, § 2; Ga. L. 1992, p. 1264, § 2; Ga. L. 1994, p. 1270, § 6.5; Ga. L. 2017, p. 646, § 1-11/SB 137.
Annotations
Cross references. Continuing garnishment to enforce support obligations, T. 18, C. 4, Art. 2. Administrative rules and regulations. Issuance of orders for income withholding, Official Compilation of the Rules and
Regulations of the State of Georgia, Department of Human Services, Office of Child Support Recovery, Recovery and Administration of Child Support, § 290-7-1.10. Law reviews. For note on 1989 amendment to this Code section, see 6 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 227 (1989). For note on the 1994 amendment of this Code section, see 11 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 176 (1994).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Enforcement of arrearages. - A 15month delay in the effective date of an
upward modification of child support to allow arrearages to be paid first was im-
proper because O.C.G.A. § 19-6-15 does not authorize a complete delay of an upward modification; the upward modification had to be made under O.C.G.A. §§ 19-6-15(f)(5)(B)(v) and 19-6-30(a) so as
to not create a de facto forgiveness of the payment of the arrearages. Hampton v. Nesmith, 294 Ga. App. 514, 669 S.E.2d 489, 2008 Ga. App. LEXIS 1254 (2008).
RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. Right to credit against child support arrearages for time children spent in custody of noncustodial parent pursuant to visitation or court order, 118 A.L.R.5th 385. Right to credit on child-support arrearages for money given directly to child, 119 A.L.R.5th 445. Right to credit against child support arrearages for time child lived with non-
custodial parent, other than for visitation or by court order, with approval of custodial parent, 120 A.L.R.5th 229. Right to credit on child support for contributions to housing costs, utility bills, and other alleged household necessities made for child’s benefit while child is not living with obligor parent, 123 A.L.R.5th 565. Right to credit on child support arrearages for gifts to child, 124 A.L.R.5th 441.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases, 1994–2013 · leading case:
Strunk v. Strunk, 749 S.E.2d 701 (Ga. 2013).
Strunk v. Strunk, 749 S.E.2d 701 (Ga. 2013).
· cites it 4× “Finally, the wife contends that the trial court erred as a matter of law in specifying the way the husband was to satisfy the arrearage in back child support and in failing to include in its order the required language on garnishment under OCGA § 19-6-30 (a).”
Hughes v. Dep't of Human Resources, 502 S.E.2d 233 (Ga. 1998).
· cites it 4× “While I concur fully with the majority opinion, I write in order to call attention to OCGA § 15-1-4(c), which authorizes a trial court to sentence those gainfully-employed persons found in contempt of an order to pay court-ordered alimony or child support to a term of…”
Georgia Dep't of Human Resources v. Word, 458 S.E.2d 110 (Ga. 1995).
· cites it 4× “Word based on Word’s arrearage in child support payments the Department of Human Resources (DHR) sought a separate income deduction order *462 under OCGA § 19-6-30 (c) et seq. Following a hearing the trial court declined to hold Word in contempt, finding among other mitigating…”
Walker v. Walker, 546 S.E.2d 315 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “On remand, the trial court shall add to its judgment the garnishment language contained in OCGA § 19-6-30 pertaining to child support orders.”
Fitzgerald v. Dep't of Human Resources, 497 S.E.2d 659 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “epartment of Human Resources (“DHR”) filed a petition pursuant to OCGA § 19-11-12 in the Superior Court of Houston County, which was the county of residence of appellant-defendant Randall Fitzgerald, and requested that the superior court adopt the agency recommendation that was…”
Gallaher v. Breaux, 650 S.E.2d 313 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “at 588 , any deductions from the income of a contemnor in such a program are subject to the provisions of OCGA §§ 19-6-30 through 19-6-33. See OCGA § 42-8-130.”
Stoker v. Severin, 665 S.E.2d 913 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “) 4 See also OCGA § 19-6-30 (requiring child support orders to provide for collection of child support by the process of continuing garnishment for support where a party, in violation of the order, fails to make support payments due under the order “so that the amount unpaid is…”
Bridges v. Wooten, 700 S.E.2d 678 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “8 See OCGA § 19-6-30 (a) (providing for collection of child support through garnishment); OCGA § 19-6-32 (providing for entry of an income deduction order or medical support notice for award of child support).”
Singleton v. Dep't of Human Resources, 588 S.E.2d 757 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “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.”
Dep't of Human Resources v. Lewis, 457 S.E.2d 824 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “) and to enter an income deduction order pursuant to OCGA § 19-6-30 et seq. The attached agency decision was a modification of a child support award which increased the amount to be paid on a periodic basis by Casey Lewis.”
Hampton v. Nesmith, 669 S.E.2d 489 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 6× “and recognized Hampton’s right to collect any arrearage that should accrue under that order as provided by law, including garnishing Nesmith’s wages pursuant to OCGA § 19-6-30 (a). The court also ordered Nesmith to provide his daughter with medical and dental insurance.”
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.