O.C.G.A.
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.
(a) The general purposes of this article are to: (1) Avoid jurisdictional competition and conflict by courts within this state in matters of child custody, which have in the past resulted in the shifting of children from county to county with harmful effects on their well-being; (2) Promote cooperation by the courts of this state, to the end that a custody decree is rendered by the court which can best decide the case in the interest of the child; (3) Assure that litigation concerning the custody of a child ordinarily takes place in the court with which the child and his family have the closest connection and where significant evidence concerning the care, protection, training, and personal relationships of the child is most readily available and that courts of this state decline the exercise of jurisdiction when the child and his family have a closer connection with another court of this state; (4) Discourage continuing controversies over child custody, in the interest of greatest stability of home environment and of secure family relationships for the child; (5) Deter abductions and other unilateral removals of children undertaken to obtain custody awards; (6) Avoid relitigation of custody decisions of other courts in this state insofar as is feasible; (7) Facilitate the enforcement of custody decrees;
(8) Make uniform the practice and procedure of the courts of this state in child custody matters. (b) This article shall be construed to promote the general purposes stated in subsection (a) of this Code section.
History
Ga. L. 1978, p. 1957, § 2.
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Failure to give res judicata effect to fact. - It is an abuse of discretion for trial judge to fail to give res judicata effect to adjudication of specific factual issues raised between parties in previous pro-
ceeding which resulted in award of visitation rights. Tirado v. Shelnutt, 159 Ga. App. 624, 284 S.E.2d 641, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 2777 (1981).
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 24 Am. Jur. 2d, Divorce and Separation, §§ 881, 882. 39 Am. Jur. 2d, Guardian and Ward, § 60 et seq. 39 Am. Jur. 2d, Habeas Corpus, §§ 84, 88, 107, 119, 135, 136.
C.J.S. 67A C.J.S., Parent and Child, §§ 63 et seq., 83, 92 et seq., 139, 140.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases, 1984–2010 · leading case:
Stills v. Johnson, 533 S.E.2d 695 (Ga. 2000).
Stills v. Johnson, 533 S.E.2d 695 (Ga. 2000).
· cites it 16× “[38] See OCGA §§ 19-9-21 to 19-9-24. [39] 258 Ga. 18 , 365 S.”
Saravia v. Mendoza, 695 S.E.2d 47 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “Hooks 9 (“the provisions of [OCGA § 19-9-23] provide venue and personal jurisdiction defenses to those against whom child custody actions are brought”); OCGA § 19-9-21 (a) (1) (stating that the statute was intended, in part, to “[a]void jurisdictional competition and conflict by…”
Dixon v. Dixon, 360 S.E.2d 8 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 4× “The closest legal basis may be OCGA § 19-9-21 (a) (4), (7), and (b), but it does not constitute authority for the proposition.”
Bennett v. Wood, 373 S.E.2d 645 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 2× “Not only would such a construction be constitutionally impermissible, see Art. VI, Sec. II, Par. VI, Const, of Ga.”
Brooks v. Carson, 390 S.E.2d 859 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 2× “” OCGA § 19-9-21 (a) (1). The Act is to be construed in concert with existing law.”
In Re Bas, 563 S.E.2d 141 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 4× “[58] OCGA § 19-9-21(a)(1), (2). [59] See Allison v.”
Jones v. Jones, 344 S.E.2d 677 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “The Child Custody Intrastate Jurisdiction Act clearly states its purpose is to avoid “jurisdictional competition and conflict by courts within this state in matters of child custody” and that “litigation concerning the custody of a child ordinarily takes place in the court with…”
Johnson v. Stills, 563 S.E.2d 141 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 4× “See generally OCGA § 19-9-21 (a) (4), (6) (generally expressing need to discourage continuing child custody controversies and avoid relitigation of custody decisions).”
DeKalb Cnty. Dep't of Fam. & Child. Servs. v. Queen, 312 S.E.2d 800 (Ga. 1984).
· cites it 2× “OCGA § 19-9-21 (Code Ann. § 24-302b). The Act further specifies that the use of a complaint in the nature of habeas corpus seeking a change of child custody is prohibited, and that after a judicial determination of custody, any complaint seeking to obtain a change of legal…”
— 19-9-21(a)(1) — 2 cases
Stills v. Johnson, 533 S.E.2d 695 (Ga. 2000).
“[38] See OCGA §§ 19-9-21 to 19-9-24. [39] 258 Ga. 18 , 365 S.”
In Re Bas, 563 S.E.2d 141 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).
“[58] OCGA § 19-9-21(a)(1), (2). [59] See Allison v.”
— 19-9-21(a)(4) — 1 case
In Re Bas, 563 S.E.2d 141 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).
“[58] OCGA § 19-9-21(a)(1), (2). [59] See Allison v.”
— 19-9-21(a)(6) — 1 case
Stills v. Johnson, 533 S.E.2d 695 (Ga. 2000).
“[38] See OCGA §§ 19-9-21 to 19-9-24. [39] 258 Ga. 18 , 365 S.”
— 19-9-21(a)(7) — 1 case
Stills v. Johnson, 533 S.E.2d 695 (Ga. 2000).
“[38] See OCGA §§ 19-9-21 to 19-9-24. [39] 258 Ga. 18 , 365 S.”
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.