O.C.G.A. § 19-7-43 (2019)

Annotations

Editor’s notes. Ga. L. 2016, p. 304, § 18/SB 64, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: “This Act shall not be construed to affect a voluntary acknowledgment of legitimation that was valid under the former provisions of Code Section 19-7-21.1, nor any of the rights or responsibilities

flowing therefrom, if it was executed on or before June 30, 2016.” Law reviews. For article, “Georgia Inheritance Rights of Children Born Out of Wedlock,” see 23 Ga. St. B.J. 28 (1986). For note, “Surrogate Mother Agreements in Georgia: Conflict and Accord with Statutory and Case Law,” see 4 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 153 (1988). For article commenting on the 1997 amendment of this Code section, see 14 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 121 (1997). For article on the 2015 amendment of this Code section, see 32 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 103 (2015).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Constitutionality. - Statutory scheme for paternity actions set forth in O.C.G.A. § 19-7-43 et seq. is not unconstitutional, notwithstanding the contention that the statutes create an improper gender-based classification that permits a male to be adjudged to be the father of a child and ordered to make corresponding child support payments without according him the same parental rights which automatically enure to the mother of that same child since: (1) the paternity statutes recognize the intrinsic differences in the circumstances of fathers and mothers of illegitimate children and eliminated the gender-based discrimination of the common law, which placed a duty of support on the mother, but not on the father; and (2) a father can achieve the same benefits as the mother by acknowledging a child as his own and filing a counterclaim for legitimation. Palmer v. Bertrand, 273 Ga. 475, 541 S.E.2d 360, 2001 Ga. LEXIS 62, cert. denied, 534 U.S. 951, 122 S. Ct. 346, 151 L. Ed. 2d 262, 2001 U.S. LEXIS 9490 (2001). Marriage to mother and recognition of child post birth. - Defendant became the legal father of the child by operation of law when the defendant married the mother after the child was born and recognized the child as the defendant’s own. Poe v. Cantrell, 361 Ga. App.

607, 863 S.E.2d 405, 2021 Ga. App. LEXIS 525 (2021). Not applicable to probate court proceedings involving descent and distribution. - In a proceeding for year’s support by the purported widow of a decedent on behalf of herself and her child, the widow incorrectly relied on O.C.G.A. § 19-7-43 to support her claim that the administrator of the decedent’s estate did not have standing to bring a petition to establish the paternity of the widow’s child as that statute was not applicable to probate court proceedings involving estate descent and distribution issues. Crowther v. Estate of Crowther, 258 Ga. App. 498, 574 S.E.2d 607, 2002 Ga. App. LEXIS 1494 (2002). Putative father waived venue rights by choosing the county of the residence of the mother and the child and deciding to forego filing his action in the county of his own residence. Holcomb v. Ellis, 259 Ga. 625, 385 S.E.2d 670, 1989 Ga. LEXIS 508 (1989). Delay in pursuing paternity. - After the lapse of thirteen years, public policy forbids the court from becoming involved in a paternity suit when the plaintiff had an opportunity in 1983 to establish paternity even though the plaintiff alleges that the delay was partially a result of his reliance on counsel’s correspondence.

Grice v. Detwiler, 227 Ga. App. 280, 488 S.E.2d 755, 1997 Ga. App. LEXIS 905 (1997). Delay in filing legitimation petition. - Appellate court rejected a father’s contention that the juvenile court erred in holding that a delay in instituting legitimation proceedings justified a finding that the father abandoned his opportunity interest as the father’s reason for the delay, specifically, waiting to obtain the results of genetic testing, was not a condition precedent to filing a legitimation petition; moreover, even with the delay, the father could have filed his legitimation petition and then sought court-ordered genetic testing. In the Interest of J.L.E., 281 Ga. App. 805, 637 S.E.2d 446, 2006 Ga. App. LEXIS 1253 (2006). Genetic testing not required. - Father failed to establish that the trial court was required to complete genetic testing prior to ruling on the issue of paternity. Ross v. Small, 355 Ga. App. 483, 844 S.E.2d 535, 2020 Ga. App. LEXIS 336 (2020). Order requiring a parent to submit to genetic testing erroneous and not supported. - In an action wherein a juvenile court approved the state’s plan for nonreunification of two twin children, the juvenile court erred by ordering a parent to submit to genetic testing and by holding that the parent lacked standing in any future related proceedings until that parent submitted to such testing as the parent had married the children’s other parent and recognized the children as the parent’s own. Further, the Department of

Family and Children Services failed to fully comply with O.C.G.A. § 19-7-43(d) by not supporting the motion with a sworn statement either alleging or denying the parent’s paternity. In the Interest of T.W., 288 Ga. App. 386, 654 S.E.2d 218, 2007 Ga. App. LEXIS 1210 (2007). Trial court’s order requiring that an alleged father and a mother submit to paternity blood testing was erroneous because the doctrine of res judicata clearly proscribed the trial court’s reconsideration of the issue of paternity; an unappealed and unmodified final order establishing paternity and child support, which was predicated on the parties’ settlement agreement and paternity acknowledgment expressly consented to by the father, adjudged that he was the father of the mother’s child, and while the father moved to set aside the final order, the trial court found that he had failed to meet his burden of disestablishing paternity under O.C.G.A. § 19-7-54 and denied the motion. Venable v. Parker, 307 Ga. App. 880, 706 S.E.2d 211, 2011 Ga. App. LEXIS 98 (2011). Agreement waiving support following artificial insemination. - Because the trial court by the court’s judgment of dismissal enforced a contract under which a mother relinquished her right to hold a sperm donor responsible for any resulting child as a valid contract, there was no violation of O.C.G.A. § 19-7-43(b) for lack of a court order approving the contract. Brown v. Gadson, 288 Ga. App. 323, 654 S.E.2d 179, 2007 Ga. App. LEXIS 1197 (2007), cert. denied, No. S08C0456, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 236 (Ga. Feb. 25, 2008).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 41 Am. Jur. 2d, Illegitimate Children, §§ 36, 38, 39. C.J.S. 14 C.J.S., Children Out-of-Wedlock, § 89 et seq. ALR. Admissibility or compellability of blood

test to establish testee’s nonpaternity for purpose of challenging testee’s parental rights, 87 A.L.R.4th 572. Right of illegitimate child to maintain action to determine paternity, 86 A.L.R.5th 637.