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

O.C.G.A. § 19-7-40 (2019)

Jurisdiction; administrative determination of paternity

✓ 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) The superior and state courts of the several counties shall have concurrent jurisdiction in all proceedings for the determination of paternity of children who are residents of this state. The state courts shall have such concurrent jurisdiction notwithstanding any contrary provision of local law. Parties to an action to establish paternity shall not be entitled to a trial by jury. (b) Whenever the Department of Human Services seeks to establish paternity of a child, the Office of State Administrative Hearings shall have authority to adjudicate the issue of paternity, pursuant to Chapter 13 of Title 50, the “Georgia Administrative Procedure Act”; provided, however, that if the putative father demands a trial in the superior court, it shall be the duty of the judge to cause an issue to be made and tried at the first session of the next term of court succeeding the putative father’s demand for trial. The administrative determination shall have the same force and effect as a judicial decree.

History

Code 1933, § 74-301, enacted by Ga. L. 1980, p. 1374, § 1; Ga. L. 1994, p. 1270, § 3; Ga. L. 1997, p. 1613, § 15; Ga. L. 2009, p. 453, § 2-2/HB 228.

Annotations

Editor’s notes. Ga. L. 1980, p. 1374, § 3, which enacted this article, provides that this article and the remedy provided herein are intended to be in addition to and cumulative of all other existing laws related to paternity, child support, or other subjects covered

herein and that this article shall not be construed to limit the operation of or repeal any such existing law. Law reviews. For note on the role of a judicial determination of paternity in the inheritance rights of illegitimate children in Georgia, see 16 Ga. L. Rev. 171 (1981). For article commenting on the 1997 amendment of this Code section, see 14 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 121 (1997).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Superior Court lacked jurisdiction under O.C.G.A. § 19-7-40 to hear a child’s complaint that the defendant administra-

tor’s decedent was the child’s father and the child was the sole heir to his estate; the case was not a paternity action, it was

a matter of descent and distribution subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the probate court. Rodriguez v. Nunez, 252 Ga. App. 56, 555 S.E.2d 514, 2001 Ga. App. LEXIS 1196 (2001), cert. denied, No. S02C0263, 2002 Ga. LEXIS 230 (Ga. Mar. 11, 2002). Trial by jury. - Retroactive application of the 1997 amendment, Ga. L. 1997, p. 1613, § 15, which extinguished the right to a jury trial in a paternity suit, was unconstitutional. Hargis v. Department of Human Resources, 272 Ga. 617, 533 S.E.2d 712, 2000 Ga. LEXIS 584 (2000). O.C.G.A. § 19-7-40 expressly prohibited jury trials in paternity actions, and since the mother and former boyfriend consolidated a paternity action with a legitimation proceeding, which did allow for a jury trial, the right to a jury trial under the legitimation statute, O.C.G.A. § 19-7-22, had to give way because other-

wise the goals of the paternity statute would be thwarted; accordingly, the mother had no right to a jury trial in the consolidated action. Banks v. Hopson, 275 Ga. 758, 571 S.E.2d 730, 2002 Ga. LEXIS 910 (2002). Residency requirement. - Georgia court does not have jurisdiction in a paternity action if neither the former husband, former wife, nor child are Georgia residents. Meredith v. Meredith, 257 Ga. 458, 360 S.E.2d 586, 1987 Ga. LEXIS 916 (1987). O.C.G.A. § 19-7-40 does not limit paternity actions in Georgia to cases in which the child is a Georgia resident. Rather, the section broadens the jurisdiction to allow an action on behalf of a child who is a resident against a putative father who is a nonresident. Jones v. Alfone, 261 Ga. 258, 404 S.E.2d 119, 1991 Ga. LEXIS 232 (1991).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL No right to a jury trial exists in a civil action for the establishment of paternity. 1997 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 97-5. RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 41 Am. Jur. 2d, Illegitimate Children, §§ 40, 41.

C.J.S. 14 C.J.S., Children Out-of-Wedlock, §§ 72, 77, 98, 124.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases, 1984–2015 · leading case: MacUch v. Pettey, 317 S.E.2d 262 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
MacUch v. Pettey, 317 S.E.2d 262 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 16× “Appellant maintains that, notwithstanding the judgment in the divorce proceedings, the child has an independent right of action to have her paternity adjudicated under OCGA § 19-7-40 et seq. The instant proceedings were brought by appellant both individually and as next friend…”
Rodriguez v. Nunez, 555 S.E.2d 514 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 16× “He argues (1) that the trial court erred in dismissing his notice of appeal on jurisdictional grounds; (2) that he was entitled to appeal *57 the summary judgment directly rather than by application for discretionary appeal; (3) that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to…”
Fleeman v. Dep't of Human Resources, 430 S.E.2d 135 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 12× “In this action, appellee has sought to establish appellant's paternity under the procedure set forth in OCGA § 19-7-40 et seq. "[T]hat legislative enactment is not intended to be exclusive, but rather is in addition to and cumulative of all existing laws governing matters of…”
Hargis v. Dep't of Human Resources, 533 S.E.2d 712 (Ga. 2000). · cites it 12× “On July 1, 1997, an amendment to OCGA § 19-7-40 became effective which extinguished the right to a jury trial in a paternity suit.”
Wilkins v. Dep't of Human Resources, 337 S.E.2d 20 (Ga. 1985). · cites it 4× “Moreover, a putative father of a child born to a woman married at the time the child was begotten could be sued for the support of the child, OCGA § 19-7-40 through § 19-7-53; yet, he would not have the right to present evidence of paternity under OCGA § 15-11-52 (b) in a…”
Smith v. Pearce (two Cases), 778 S.E.2d 248 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “5 OCGA § 19-7-40 et seq. concern proceedings for the determination of paternity.”
Dep't of Human Resources v. Mitchell, 501 S.E.2d 508 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 19-7-40 et seq. The authority for DHR to bring a paternity action in the name of and for the benefit of a child is given in OCGA § 19-7-43 (a) (4).”
Williamson v. Ward, 386 S.E.2d 727 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “The appellee, Janice Ward, brought this action against the appellant, Bronnie Williamson, seeking a determination pursuant to OCGA § 19-7-40 et seq. that the appellant is the natural father of her minor child.”
State v. Slavny, 395 S.E.2d 56 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 4× “But here the State, not the mother, seeks the evidence. There is no expression of legislative intent requiring the prosecutrix in a criminal abandonment charge to file an ancillary suit to obtain blood test evidence for the State to establish paternity and rendering such test…”
Crowther v. Est. of Crowther, 574 S.E.2d 607 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “10 OCGA § 19-7-40 (a). 11 See Rodriguez, supra.”
Dep't of Human Resources v. Carlton, 329 S.E.2d 181 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “Under OCGA § 19-7-40 the superior court is granted concurrent jurisdiction with the state court in all paternity proceedings involving children who are residents of the state.”
Britten v. State, 328 S.E.2d 556 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “He has been steadily employed for the past three years earning between $700 and $800 per month as a gardener and custodian.”
Show all 22 citing cases →
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.