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).

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).

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. § 19-9-24 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).

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. § 19-9-24(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).

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).

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).

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).

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).

Cited in Bentley v. McSwain, 153 Ga. App. 451, 265 S.E.2d 360 (1980); Looney v. Looney, 183 Ga. App. 233, 358 S.E.2d 642 (1987).

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.