O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 19-9-102 (2019)

Application

✓ 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 motion or other request for relief made in a child custody proceeding or to enforce a child custody determination which was commenced before July 1, 2001, is governed by the law in effect at the time the motion or other request was made.

History

Code 1981, § 19-9-102, enacted by Ga. L. 2001, p. 129, § 1.

Annotations

Code Commission notes. Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in

2001, “July 1, 2001,” was substituted for “the effective date of this article”.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Applicability. - O.C.G.A. § 19-9-102 applies only to motions and requests made before the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, O.C.G.A.

§ 19-9-40 et seq., was enacted. Devito v. Devito, 280 Ga. 367, 628 S.E.2d 108, 2006 Ga. LEXIS 201 (2006).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 2002–2006 · leading case: Parke v. Fant, 578 S.E.2d 896 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Parke v. Fant, 578 S.E.2d 896 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “Hurst, David J. Turner, Jr., for appellee. Judgment affirmed.”

Edwards v. Edwards, 563 S.E.2d 888 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “Nevertheless, “[a] motion or other request for relief made in a child custody proceeding or to enforce a child custody determination which was commenced before July 1, 2001, is governed by the law in effect at the time the motion or other request was made.”

DeVito v. DeVito, 628 S.E.2d 108 (Ga. 2006). · cites it 2× “Nor does OCGA § 19-9-102 help appellant because that provision applies only to motions and requests made before the UCCJEA was enacted.”

In Re Bas, 563 S.E.2d 141 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “[36] OCGA § 19-9-102 (2001 Supp.). [37] See In re Stroh, 240 Ga.”

Devito v. Devito, 628 S.E.2d 108 (Ga. 2006). · cites it 2× “The record in this case is devoid of any evidence to support appellant’s bald assertion that the initial determination was not consistent with the provisions of the UC-CJEA.”

Johnson v. Stills, 563 S.E.2d 141 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 19-9-102 (2001 Supp.). See In re Stroh, 240 Ga.”

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.