O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 19-9-40 (2019)

Short title

✓ 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

This article may be cited as the “Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act.”

History

Code 1981, § 19-9-40, enacted by Ga. L. 2001, p. 129, § 1.

Annotations

Law reviews. For annual survey of domestic relations law, see 58 Mercer L. Rev. 133 (2006).

For survey article on domestic relations law, see 59 Mercer L. Rev. 139 (2007).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, annotations decided under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, former Code 1933, §§ 74-501 through 74-525, subsequently codified as §§ 19-9-40 through 19-9-64, are included in the annotations for this Code section. Article to be considered in pari materia with applicable legislation. - Former Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act does not expressly repeal any particular provisions of the Civil Practice Act, nor existing statutory provisions covering divorce, custody, alimony, and child support procedures, and must be considered in pari materia with other applicable provisions of law. Gambrell v. Gambrell, 246 Ga. 516, 272 S.E.2d 70, 1980 Ga. LEXIS 1179 (1980) (decided under former Code 1933, § 74-510).

Effective date. Effective July 1, 2001, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act was replaced by the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, O.C.G.A. § 19-9-40 et seq. Edwards v. Edwards, 254 Ga. App. 849, 563 S.E.2d 888, 2002 Ga. App. LEXIS 418 (2002), cert. denied, No. S02C1258, 2002 Ga. LEXIS 723 (Ga. Sept. 6, 2002). Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1738 et seq., applies in all interstate child custody disputes, not only when a child was abducted by a parent and removed to another state. Wilson v. Gouse, 263 Ga. 887, 441 S.E.2d 57, 1994 Ga. LEXIS 133 (1994) (decided under former Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act). Modification of out-of-state decree. - Ohio court which entered the initial custody decree no longer had jurisdiction

over the subject matter of the modification action; thus, Georgia was free under § 1738A(f) of the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (28 U.S.C. § 1738A(f)) to modify the Ohio custody order and was correct when it initially assumed jurisdiction to do so. Wilson v. Gouse, 263 Ga. 887, 441 S.E.2d 57, 1994 Ga. LEXIS 133 (1994) (decided under former Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act). Georgia Court properly determined that the court had jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), O.C.G.A. § 199-40 et seq., to consider the custody modification petition after both made sworn statements that the children resided in Georgia and those statements were corroborated by evidence the children had been enrolled in public school in Georgia for the necessary amount of time. The UCCJEA did not require that the court include express factual findings as to the children’s “home state.” Razi v. Burns, 354 Ga. App. 608, 841 S.E.2d 407, 2020 Ga. App. LEXIS 210 (2020). No abuse of discretion in declining jurisdiction. - Trial court did not abuse

the court’s discretion by declining to exercise jurisdiction in a child custody case under O.C.G.A. § 19-9-67(b) because the children lived in Texas, the witnesses, such as the children’s teachers and health care providers were in Texas, and the trial court determined that the case could be more expeditiously resolved there. Odion v. Odion, 325 Ga. App. 733, 754 S.E.2d 778, 2014 Ga. App. LEXIS 58 (2014). Jurisdiction determined at time of filing petition. - Judgment affirming the trial court’s ruling dismissing a father’s child custody modification petition was reversed because jurisdiction attached at the time of the filing of the father’s petition; thus, the trial court had jurisdiction over the modification action since the father lived in Georgia at the time and jurisdiction was not lost when the father later was transferred away from Georgia. Plummer v. Plummer, 305 Ga. 23, 823 S.E.2d 258, 2019 Ga. LEXIS 17 (2019).

RESEARCH REFERENCES U.L.A. Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (U.L.A.) § 26. ALR. Applicability of Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) to temporary custody orders, 81 A.L.R.4th 1101. Child custody: when does state that issued previous custody determination have continuing jurisdiction under Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) or Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), 28 USCS § 1738A, 83 A.L.R.4th 742. Child custody and visitation rights of person infected with AIDS, 86 A.L.R.4th 211. Home state jurisdiction of court under § 3(a)(1) of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) or the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), 28 USCS § 1738A(c)(2)(A), 6 A.L.R.5th 1. Default jurisdiction of court under § 3(a)(4) of the Uniform Child Custody

Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) or the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), 28 USCS § 1738A(c)(2)(D), 6 A.L.R.5th 69. Abandonment jurisdiction of court under §§ 3(a)(3)(i) and 14(a) of Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act and Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, 28 USCA §§ 1738A(c)(2)(C)(i) and 1738A(f), notwithstanding existence of prior valid custody decree rendered by second state, 78 A.L.R.5th 465. Construction and application of Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act’s home state jurisdiction provision, 57 A.L.R.6th 163. Applicability and application of Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) to international child custody and support actions, 66 A.L.R.6th 269. Construction and application of International Child Abduction Remedies Act (42 USCS § 11601 et seq.), 125 A.L.R. Fed. 217.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 91 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Delgado v. Combs, 724 S.E.2d 436 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Delgado v. Combs, 724 S.E.2d 436 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 6× “1 OCGA § 19-9-40 et seq. 2 We note that although the items were returned as undeliverable, the return-to-sender sticker reflected that Delgado had a new address in Hutchinson, Kansas.”

Kuriatnyk v. Kuriatnyk, 690 S.E.2d 397 (Ga. 2010). · cites it 2× “In another enumeration, he urges that the trial court lacked jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), OCGA § 19-9-40 et seq., because the child’s home state was Florida, as he had not lived in Georgia with Mother for at least six…”

Dyer v. Surratt, 466 S.E.2d 584 (Ga. 1996). · cites it 4× “The trial court determined that Surratt had timely asserted her defense of lack of personal jurisdiction, and dismissed Dyer's petition after concluding that the Georgia court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), OCGA §…”

Dallow v. Dallow, 791 S.E.2d 20 (Ga. 2016). · cites it 2× “129 (codified at OCGA §§ 19-9-40 to 19-9-104). 5 OCGA § 19-9-23 says in full: (a) Except as otherwise provided in this Code section, after a court has determined who is to be the legal custodian of a child, any complaint seeking to obtain a change of legal custody of the child…”

Cohen v. Cohen, 684 S.E.2d 94 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “Accordingly, we discern no error in the trial court’s denial of Heather’s motion to dismiss. DECIDED September 2, 2009.”

Early v. Early, 499 S.E.2d 329 (Ga. 1998). · cites it 4× “In August 1996, the Georgia court held that California was the appropriate forum to determine issues that had arisen between the parties over child custody and visitation under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), OCGA § 19-9-40 et seq. In 1997, appellee Robert…”

In the Interest of J. P., 480 S.E.2d 8 (Ga. 1997). · cites it 2× “In contrast, child custody orders requiring an application to appeal under OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2), “include those entered as part of a divorce case or pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act of 1978 [OCGA § 19-9-40 et seq.] or the Georgia Child Custody Intrastate…”

Plummer v. Plummer, 823 S.E.2d 258 (Ga. 2019). · cites it 2× “**23 This appeal involves the interpretation of a provision of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), codified in Georgia as OCGA § 19-9-40 et seq. The case stems from the trial court's dismissal of a child custody modification action, filed by…”

Dellinger v. Dellinger, 609 S.E.2d 331 (Ga. 2004). · cites it 2× “With few exceptions, Georgia’s Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, OCGA § 19-9-40 et seq., provides that the court which made the initial custody determination will retain exclusive, continuing jurisdiction of the matter.”

Saravia v. Mendoza, 695 S.E.2d 47 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “10 In her brief, Mendoza argues that this Code section, which is part of the Georgia Child Custody Intrastate Jurisdiction Act (see OCGA § 19-9-20), does not apply to her; instead, she asserts that her case would be governed by the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and…”

Scott v. Scott, 716 S.E.2d 809 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “(b) The mother claims that the trial court could have granted her motion to dismiss based upon the alternative ground of res judicata under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, OCGA § 19-9-40 et seq., which provides: A child custody determination made by a…”

Bellew v. Larese, 706 S.E.2d 78 (Ga. 2011). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 19-9-40 et seq. On April 15, 2009 the Tribunale di Firenze issued an order reiterating that jurisdiction lay in that tribunal, accepting the application of Georgia law as to divorce, and allowing the case to proceed.”

Show all 91 citing cases →

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.