O.C.G.A. § 19-9-24 (2019)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS O.C.G.A. § 19-9-24 employs “clean hands” doctrine to ensure that ends of that section are met. Stewart v. Stewart, 160 Ga. App. 463, 287 S.E.2d 378, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 3148 (1981). Conduct of custodian cannot deprive child of right to support any more than custodian can waive support for child or contract support away. Stewart v. Stewart, 160 Ga. App. 463, 287 S.E.2d 378, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 3148 (1981). If O.C.G.A. § 19-9-24 had been intended to permit parents by their own action to forfeit the child’s right to support rather than merely their own, and had been intended to mean that actions of third party will dissolve the parent’s duty to support the child, the legislature would have been very careful to say so. Stewart v. Stewart, 160 Ga. App. 463, 287 S.E.2d 378, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 3148 (1981). Clear object in prohibition against maintenance of “unclean” contempt

actions is to prevent any action for enforcement of such orders as are mentioned in O.C.G.A. § 19-9-24, as otherwise this section would be virtually and ultimately useless in promoting the statute’s purpose. Stewart v. Stewart, 160 Ga. App. 463, 287 S.E.2d 378, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 3148 (1981). Garnishment proceeding may fall within proscription of section. - When used to collect alimony, or other awards which constitute alimony, a garnishment proceeding is no more than an action for enforcement of such awards and thus is within proscription of “any action for alimony, etc.” provided in O.C.G.A. § 19-9-24. Stewart v. Stewart, 160 Ga. App. 463, 287 S.E.2d 378, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 3148 (1981). Garnishment as means of enforcing domestic monetary award. - As means of enforcing domestic monetary award, a garnishment action is as appropriate as a contempt action. Stewart v.

Stewart, 160 Ga. App. 463, 287 S.E.2d 378, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 3148 (1981). Garnishment proceeding not within section’s proscription. - Garnishment proceeding for enforcement of child support award is not included among actions listed by O.C.G.A. § 199-24 which may not be maintained by a legal custodian who is withholding visitation rights in violation of a court order. Child support is the right of the child and not of the child’s custodian; neither wife nor civil courts can take away this right that inheres expressly in the children. Stewart v. Stewart, 160 Ga. App. 463, 287 S.E.2d 378, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 3148 (1981). Dismissal of claims following withholding of visitation. - Having found at a hearing that a custodial parent had withheld visitation, a trial court did not err when, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 19-924(b), the court dismissed the contempt, visitation, and custody portions of the custodial parent’s petition and, consequently, did not permit the custodial parent to present evidence on the merits of the custodial parent’s dismissed claims. Avren v. Garten, 289 Ga. 186, 710 S.E.2d 130, 2011 Ga. LEXIS 377 (2011). Juvenile court did not err by dismissing the mother’s petition for modification of custody after finding that the mother withheld visitation, the mother unpersuasively testified that the child did not wish to visit the father, and it was not in the child’s best interest to be in the mother’s custody. Grailer v. Jones, 349 Ga. App. 625, 824 S.E.2d 118, 2019 Ga. App. LEXIS 135 (2019). Court justified in changing custody only upon extreme emergency. - To authorize the trial court to exercise the

court’s authority in a case where the court’s authority is restricted by O.C.G.A. Art. 2, Ch. 9, T. 19, there must be an extreme emergency justifying retrieval of the child by the noncustodial party. Hutto v. Hutto, 250 Ga. 116, 296 S.E.2d 549, 1982 Ga. LEXIS 998 (1982). No jurisdiction over custody action. - Trial court violated the law and public policy of this state by assuming jurisdiction of an action for modification of custody brought by father who was not the legal custodian and had no right to retain physical custody once the mother as legal custodian demanded return of the child. Lightfoot v. Lightfoot, 210 Ga. App. 400, 436 S.E.2d 700, 1993 Ga. App. LEXIS 1201 (1993). Court lacked authority to change custody in habeas corpus proceeding. - In habeas corpus proceeding by legal custodian seeking return of child to her custody, the trial court was without authority to allow evidence to be presented by physical custodian as to the legal custodian’s fitness and in ordering a change of custody. Hutto v. Hutto, 250 Ga. 116, 296 S.E.2d 549, 1982 Ga. LEXIS 998 (1982). No application of statute when no change in custody requested. - O.C.G.A. § 19-9-24, precluding a change of custody if custody was being withheld from the legal custodian, did not apply because there was no evidence that the husband had asked for the children, and the wife had offered to let them go for visitation at Thanksgiving if the children did not ride with the husband’s brother, who had hit one of the children. Saravia v. Mendoza, 303 Ga. App. 758, 695 S.E.2d 47, 2010 Ga. App. LEXIS 341 (2010).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 17 Am. Jur. 2d, Contempt, §§ 3, 16. 24A Am. Jur. 2d, Divorce and Separation, §§ 879, 880, 885, 899 et seq. C.J.S. 17 C.J.S., Contempt, § 23. 39 C.J.S., Guardian and Ward, §§ 80, 81. 617 C.J.S., Parent and Child, §§ 241, 242.

ALR. Removal by custodial parents of child from jurisdiction in violation of court order as justifying termination, suspension, or reduction of child support payments, 8 A.L.R.4th 1231.

ARTICLE 3 UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT Editor’s notes. For additional cases dealing with custody of children, see annotations under § 9-14-2, dealing with habeas corpus on account of detention of child, and under §§ 19-7-1 and 19-7-4, dealing with parental powers and loss of parental custody. Ga. L. 2001, p. 129, § 1, effective July 1, 2001, repealed the Code sections formerly codified at this article and enacted the current article. The former article consisted of Code Sections 19-9-40 through 19-9-64, relating to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, and was based on Code 1933, §§ 74-501 through 74-525, enacted by Ga. L. 1978, p. 258, § 1; Ga. L. 1988, p. 1408, § 1. Law reviews. For article surveying developments in

Georgia domestic relations law from mid1980 through mid-1981, see 33 Mercer L. Rev. 109 (1981). For survey article on domestic relations, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 113 (1982). For note, “The UCCJA: Coming of Age,” see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 861 (1983). For article, “Enforcing the Full Faith and Credit Clause: Congress Legislates Finality for Child Custody Decrees,” see 1 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 157 (1985). For article, “Child Custody - Jurisdiction and Procedure,” see 35 Emory L.J. 291 (1986). For article, “Domestic Relations Law,” see 53 Mercer L. Rev. 265 (2001).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Editor’s notes. - Some of the decisions cited below were decided under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, former Code 1933, §§ 74-501 through 74525, subsequently codified as §§ 19-9-40 through 19-9-64. Applicability of article. - Former Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act was applicable only to states, territories, or possessions of the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. Richardson v. Richardson, 257 Ga. 101, 355 S.E.2d 664, 1987 Ga. LEXIS 746 (1987) (decided under former Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act). Among the primary purposes of the former Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act was to avoid overlapping adjudication and to prevent judgment races. Webb v. Webb, 245 Ga. 650, 266 S.E.2d 463, 1980 Ga. LEXIS 882 (1980) (decided under former Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act). Georgia will recognize and enforce custody modifications of other states

if proceedings were in accordance with the provisions of the former Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. Brenner v. Cavin, 163 Ga. App. 694, 295 S.E.2d 135, 1982 Ga. App. LEXIS 2623 (1982) (decided under former Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act). Out of state judgment did not have to be followed as to tax exemption after custody award changed. - Because there was reasonable evidence of changed circumstances which supported the trial court’s award of physical custody of the children to the mother, the court was not bound by the prior ruling of a Wyoming court with respect to the dependency exemption; thus, the court did not err in finding that the parent who was awarded physical custody of the children, the mother, was entitled to claim the dependency exemptions for the three children. Blumenshine v. Hall, 329 Ga. App. 449, 765 S.E.2d 647, 2014 Ga. App. LEXIS 708 (2014), cert. denied, No. S15C0419, 2015 Ga. LEXIS 56 (Ga. Jan. 20, 2015).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 24A Am. Jur. 2d, Divorce and Separation, §§ 868, 874. 39 Am. Jur. 2d, Habeas Corpus, §§ 95 et seq., 107. 59 Am. Jur. 2d, Parent and Child, § 26 et seq. C.J.S. 27C C.J.S., Divorce, § 1046. 39 C.J.S., Habeas Corpus, § 241 et seq. 43 C.J.S., Infants, § 10 et seq. 67A C.J.S., Parent and Child, § 94 et seq. U.L.A. Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (U.L.A.) § 1.

ALR. Validity, construction, and application of Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, 96 A.L.R.3d 968; 78 A.L.R.4th 1028. Recognition and enforcement of out-ofstate custody decree under § 13 of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) or the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), 28 USCS § 1738A(a), 40 A.L.R.5th 227.

PART 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS