CopyCited 22 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 27, 1985 | 255 Ga. 230
...a wed mother would not. Both could be the actual fathers, yet they *234 would be treated differently. 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 termination proceeding....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jul 14, 2000 | 272 Ga. 617, 2000 Fulton County D. Rep. 2560
...Davis, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. *713 HINES, Justice. The Department of Human Resources ("DHR") filed suit to establish William Hargis's paternity of a minor. Hargis answered on May 20, 1997, demanding a jury trial. 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....
...Trial was set on the non-jury calender and Hargis filed a motion for jury trial, which was denied. This Court granted Hargis's application for interlocutory review to consider the trial court's ruling that he did not have a right to a jury trial. Hargis contends that applying amended OCGA §
19-7-40 to him unconstitutionally deprives him of the right to trial by jury. See Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Par. XI; Kelley v. Dept. of Human Resources,
269 Ga. 384, 384-385(1),
498 S.E.2d 741 (1998). It is without question that Hargis had a right to a jury trial when he filed his demand. See former OCGA §
19-7-40(a) & (b)....
...That right vested in Hargis upon his demand for a jury trial. See Paul v. Keene,
272 Ga. 357,
529 S.E.2d 135 (2000); Trulove v. Trulove,
233 Ga. 896,
213 S.E.2d 868 (1975); Walker v. Bivins,
57 Ga. 322, 325-326(2) (1876). Therefore, the 1997 amendment to OCGA §
19-7-40 was unconstitutionally applied to him. [1] DHR argues that the legislature intended that the amendment to OCGA §
19-7-40 be applied retrospectively because other sections of Ga....
...Regardless of whether a party to a paternity proceeding had a right to a jury trial under common law, or whether that right was a creation of statute, see Kelley, supra, the statute as it existed when Hargis demanded a jury trial clearly provided for one if the putative father demanded it. See former OCGA §
19-7-40(a) & (b).
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 15, 2002 | 275 Ga. 758, 2002 Fulton County D. Rep. 2967
...ction is entitled to a jury trial on child support. Relying on the language and purpose of the paternity statute, we hold that a claim for child support that is part of a petition to establish paternity falls within the statutory prohibition in OCGA §
19-7-40(a) against jury trials when a paternity case is consolidated with a legitimation case....
...child support, and set out a visitation schedule. Banks filed an application for a discretionary appeal, which the Court of Appeals for the State of Georgia denied. This Court granted her petition for certiorari to resolve the conflict between OCGA §
19-7-40(a), which prohibits jury trials in paternity actions, and OCGA §
19-7-22(f), which allows jury trials on child support in legitimation proceedings....
...[5] Among the procedures required were ones concerning the establishment of paternity, including procedures "providing that the parties to an action to establish paternity are not entitled to a trial by jury." [6] In response to this federal mandate, the legislature amended OCGA §
19-7-40(a) to prohibit jury trials: "Parties to an action to establish paternity shall not be entitled to a trial by jury." [7] The second act, the Juvenile Proceedings Act, dealt with laws related to the parent-child relationship in juvenile court....
...that she filed as part of her counterclaim in the father's legitimation action. She bases this entitlement on the following argument: paternity was not an issue at trial after Hopson stipulated to paternity; therefore, the ban on jury trials in OCGA §
19-7-40(a) no longer controlled; the remaining issues before the trial court were legitimation, which Banks did not oppose, visitation, and child support; under OCGA §
19-7-22(f), she had an express statutory right to a jury trial on child support....
...legitimation statute. If either parent were able to bootstrap the right to a jury trial under the legitimation statute to a claim for the establishment of paternity, the parents would be able to circumvent the legislative ban on jury trials in OCGA §
19-7-40....
...on support in a paternity action, even when it is consolidated with a legitimation action, we affirm the trial court's ruling denying Banks a jury trial on her claim for child support. Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur. NOTES [1] See OCGA §§
19-7-40 to
19-7-53....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 1, 1987 | 360 S.E.2d 586
...Healy, for appellant.
Andrew J. Hill, Jr., for appellee.
These factors, severally or en gross, cannot confer jurisdiction over a non-resident where the moving party is also a non-resident, and is proceeding on behalf of herself and yet another non-resident. OCGA §
19-7-40 provides: “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.” (Emphasis supplied.) Compare Smith v....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Apr 4, 1984 | 252 Ga. 403
...Therefore, even if not constitutionally required, the court was authorized to initially place the burden of paying costs upon the State. *404 Our Code governing the parent and child relationship includes an article providing for the determination of paternity. OCGA §
19-7-40 et seq....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 15, 1991 | 404 S.E.2d 119
Clarke, Chief Justice.
The trial court dismissed this paternity action for lack of jurisdiction under OCGA §
19-7-40 because the child is not a resident of Georgia....
...ound that the child is not a resident of Georgia. The court relied upon this court’s case of Meredith v. Meredith,
257 Ga. 458 (360 SE2d 586) (1987), in its decision to dismiss the action.
We find that the court erred in dismissing the case. OCGA §
19-7-40 does not limit paternity actions in Georgia to cases in which the child is a Georgia resident....
...Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, Carolyn R. Gorwitz, Heidi M. Faenza, for appellant.
William M. Bristow, for appellee.
The holding of Meredith v. Meredith, supra, upon which the trial court relied, was that if neither the moving party nor the child lives in Georgia, OCGA §
19-7-40 does not confer Georgia jurisdiction over a non-resident putative father....
