O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 19-9-42 (2019)

Article inapplicable to adoptions or authorizations for emergency care

✓ 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 does not govern an adoption proceeding or a proceeding pertaining to the authorization of emergency medical care for a child.

History

Code 1981, § 19-9-42, enacted by Ga. L. 2001, p. 129, § 1.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS UCCJEA does not govern adoption proceedings. - Trial court did not err in exercising jurisdiction in a petition for adoption because the Georgia Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement

Act (UCCJEA), O.C.G.A. § 19-9-40 et seq., did not govern adoption proceedings. Barr v. Gregor, 316 Ga. App. 269, 728 S.E.2d 868, 2012 Ga. App. LEXIS 533 (2012).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases, 1984–2015 · leading case: Harper v. Landers, 348 S.E.2d 698 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Harper v. Landers, 348 S.E.2d 698 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 12× “OCGA § 19-9-42 (5) defines "home state" as "the state in which the child, immediately preceding the time involved, lived with his parents, a parent, or a person acting as a parent for at least six consecutive months .”
Gainey v. Olivo, 373 S.E.2d 4 (Ga. 1988). · cites it 4× “” OCGA § 19-9-42 (2). In determining whether the UCCJA applies to adoption proceedings the Court of Appeals noted that other jurisdictions are split on the issue.”
In Re Stroh, 523 S.E.2d 887 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “’s custody under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (“UCCJA”), OCGA § 19-9-40 et *844 seq.”
Rokowski v. Gilbert, 620 S.E.2d 509 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “36 OCGA§ 19-9-42. 37 Spires v. Bittick, 171 Ga.”
Slay v. Calhoun, 772 S.E.2d 425 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 19-9-42. If the General Assembly likewise wished to exempt legitimation proceedings involving child custody issues from some or all of the UCCJEA’s provisions, we think it would have done so expressly.”
Baker v. Ashburn, 347 S.E.2d 660 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 4× “Under OCGA § 19-9-42 (2) a “custody determination” includes visitation rights, but “does not include a decision relating to child support.”
Kemp v. Sharp, 409 S.E.2d 204 (Ga. 1991). · cites it 2× “[OCGA § 19-9-42 (5).] The parties’ child lived in Texas with Sharp for at least six consecutive months prior to the institution of Kemp’s action.”
Thompson v. Thompson, 526 S.E.2d 576 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 19-9-42 (5). OCGA § 19-9-43 (a) (1).”
Mock v. Smith, 503 S.E.2d 319 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 4× “a person claiming custody or for other reasons and one of the parents continues to live here; or (2) if it is in the child’s best interest that this state assume jurisdiction either because (a) the child and at least one parent have a significant connection with this state and…”
Mulle v. Yount, 420 S.E.2d 776 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “), concluding that Georgia is the child’s “home state” as defined by OCGA § 19-9-42 (5) since he has resided here with his mother since 1987.”
Olivo v. Gainey, 364 S.E.2d 279 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 4× “Under the UCCJA, custody proceedings are defined as “proceedings in which a custody determination is one of several issues, such as an action for divorce or separation, and includes child neglect and dependency proceedings.”
Gregg v. Barnes, 417 S.E.2d 206 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 19-9-43 (a) *552 states that “[a] court of this state which is competent to decide child custody matters has jurisdiction to make a child custody determination by initial or modification decree if: (1) This state: (A) Is the home state of the child at the time of the…”
Show all 31 citing cases →
19-9-42(3): 1 case
In Re Jsj, 558 S.E.2d 763 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).
19-9-42(5): 3 cases
Thompson v. Thompson, 526 S.E.2d 576 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). “OCGA § 19-9-42 (5). OCGA § 19-9-43 (a) (1).”
In Re Bas, 563 S.E.2d 141 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).
In Re Jsj, 558 S.E.2d 763 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).
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.