O.C.G.A. § 19-7-51 (2019)

Annotations

Editor’s notes. Ga. L. 2008, p. 667, § 1/SB 88, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: “This Act shall be known and may be cited as the ‘Care of a Grandchild Act.’”

Ga. L. 2008, p. 667, § 2/SB 88, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: “The General Assembly finds that: “(1) An increasing number of relatives in Georgia, including grandparents and greatgrandparents, are providing care to children who cannot reside with their parents due to the parent’s incapacity or inability to perform the regular and expected functions to provide such care and support;

“(2) Parents need a means to confer to grandparents or great-grandparents the authority to act on behalf of grandchildren without the time and expense of a court proceeding; and “(3) Providing a statutory mechanism for granting such authority enhances family preservation and stability.” 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 for-

mer 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 commenting on the 1997 amendment of this Code section, see 14 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 121 (1997). For article on domestic relations, see 66 Mercer L. Rev. 65 (2014). For annual survey on wills, trusts, guardianships, and fiduciary administration, see 67 Mercer L. Rev. 273 (2015).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Order requiring a parent to submit to genetic testing. - 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 estab-

lishing 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). Denial of petition for legitimation improperly set aside. - Trial court erred by setting aside the denial of a biological father’s petition for legitimation because the voluntary acknowledgment of paternity preempted the denial as the father failed to make the trial court aware of the acknowledgment and could not subsequently use the document to set aside the trial court’s final judgment. Allifi v. Raider, 323 Ga. App. 510, 746 S.E.2d 763, 2013 Ga. App. LEXIS 672 (2013), cert. denied, No. S13C1816, 2014 Ga. LEXIS 90 (Ga. Jan. 21, 2014).