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…”
Rozier v. Berto, 496 S.E.2d 544 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “There is, however, a limited exception to this general rule of home state jurisdiction in certain cases of emergency arising in a state other than the home state.”
Edwards v. Edwards, 563 S.E.2d 888 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “For purposes of the UCCJA, the Commonwealth of the Bahamas constitutes a “state” as defined by OCGA § 19-9-42 (10). As codified under the UCCJA, [t]he general policies of this article extend to the international area.”
In Re Bas, 563 S.E.2d 141 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “[34] See OCGA § 19-9-42 (2001 Supp.). [35] See D.L.”
Yount v. Mulle, 470 S.E.2d 647 (Ga. 1996). · cites it 2× “The Superior Court of Chatham County denied the father’s motion and assumed jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), OCGA § 19-9-40 et seq.”
Henderson v. Just., 478 S.E.2d 434 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 19-9-42 (5). In this case, the trial court found, supported by ample evidence in the record, that Georgia is the “home state” of the minor children.”
In re Adoption of D. J. F. M., 643 S.E.2d 879 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 19-9-42; Rokowski v. Gilbert, 275 Ga.”
Dyer v. Surratt, 456 S.E.2d 510 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 19-9-42 (5). Moreover, there is no evidence in the record that the children have any significant connection with Georgia, that the children are physically present in this state and have been abandoned or are in need of emergency protection, or that North Carolina…”
Paul v. Paul, 361 S.E.2d 221 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “See OCGA §§ 19-9-42 (5); 19-9-43 (a) (1) (A) and (B); Harper v.”
In the Interest of J. S. J., 558 S.E.2d 763 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 19-9-42 (5). (Citations and punctuation omitted.”
Binns v. Smith, 310 S.E.2d 225 (Ga. 1984). · cites it 4× “§ 74-506), authorizing notice to a person "outside this state" to be given "In the manner prescribed by the law of the place in which the service is made.”
Johnson v. Stills, 563 S.E.2d 141 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “See OCGA § 19-9-42 (2001 Supp.). See D. L. N.”
In the Interest of M. M., 474 S.E.2d 53 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 19-9-42 (5). The home state here is clearly Indiana.”
Mezquita v. Campbell, 519 S.E.2d 27 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 19-9-42 (5). Rozier v. Berto, 230 Ga.”
In Re Jsj, 558 S.E.2d 763 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 19-9-42(3) defines a "custody proceeding" as including "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 and adoption proceedings.”
Barr v. Gregor, 728 S.E.2d 868 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “Although appellants note that adoptions are generally excluded from the UCCJEA, they urge that we nevertheless should apply the provisions here because of the effect of the adoption petition on the custody order rendered by the Tennessee Court.”
In the Interest of E. E. B. W., 733 S.E.2d 369 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 19-9-42. Moreover, under the UCCJEA, “a foreign nation is treated in the same manner as would be a sister state of the United States [and a] foreign child custody determination must be enforced if it was made ‘under factual circumstances in substantial conformity with the…”
In the Interest Of: E. E. B. W. (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 19-9-42. 1 “‘Child custody determination’” means a judgment, decree, or other order of a court providing for the legal custody, physical custody, or visitation with respect to a child.”
Laura Barr v. Richard Gregor (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “However, our 2 At that time, Barr went by her maiden name Laura Nichols. 3 The appellants have represented in this brief on appeal that Barr is the primary objecting party and that they do not challenge the trial court’s decision denying Nichols’ visitation.”
Scott Yother v. Laine Yother (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). “§ 36-6- 202(5) (1996) (repealed 1999); Ga. Code Ann. § 19-9-42 (5) (1999). Furthermore, there is no indication that the courts of Georgia have declined to exercise jurisdiction in this matter in deference to Tennessee as the more appropriate forum.”
— 19-9-42(3) — 1 case
In Re Jsj, 558 S.E.2d 763 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). “OCGA § 19-9-42(3) defines a "custody proceeding" as including "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 and adoption proceedings.”
— 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). “[34] See OCGA § 19-9-42 (2001 Supp.). [35] See D.L.”
In Re Jsj, 558 S.E.2d 763 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). “OCGA § 19-9-42(3) defines a "custody proceeding" as including "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 and adoption proceedings.”
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.