O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 19-9-44 (2019)

Child custody determinations of foreign country

✓ 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

(a) A court of this state shall treat a foreign country as if it were a state of the United States for the purpose of applying this part and Part 2 of this article. (b) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c) of this Code section, a child custody determination made in a foreign country under factual circumstances in substantial conformity with the jurisdictional standards of this article must be recognized and enforced under Part 3 of this article. (c) A court of this state need not apply this article if the child custody law of a foreign country violates fundamental principles of human rights.

History

Code 1981, § 19-9-44, enacted by Ga. L. 2001, p. 129, § 1.

Annotations

Law reviews. For annual survey of domestic relations law, see 56 Mercer L. Rev. 221 (2004).

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. No jurisdiction over person residing in foreign country. - Former Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act cannot be the basis for jurisdiction over person residing in foreign country. Binns v. Smith, 251 Ga. 861, 310 S.E.2d 225, 1984 Ga. LEXIS 563 (1984) (decided under former Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act). No jurisdiction over Turkish-born child who lived in Georgia for days. - In a child custody dispute in which a

mother and child had lived in Georgia for 22 days before traveling to Turkey, and a Turkish court had awarded the mother custody, a Georgia court erred in asserting jurisdiction because Georgia was not the child’s home state, and the Turkey action was commenced first and in compliance with UCCJEA requirements. Gorelik v. Gorelik, 346 Ga. App. 786, 815 S.E.2d 330, 2018 Ga. App. LEXIS 420 (2018), cert. denied, No. S18C1536, 2019 Ga. LEXIS 165 (Ga. Mar. 4, 2019). Georgia trial court had jurisdiction. - Trial court erred in dismissing a husband’s divorce complaint on the ground that jurisdiction was properly with the Italian court because the trial court had jurisdiction to make the initial custody determination under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforce-

ment Act (UCCJEA), O.C.G.A. § 19-9-40 et seq., specifically O.C.G.A. § 19-9-61(a) and (b), and no other court did since Georgia was the only state, including Italy, that could qualify as the “home state” of the parties’ child pursuant to the UCCJEA, specifically O.C.G.A. § 19-941(7), at the time either the Italian custody proceeding or the Georgia proceeding was commenced and at the time the trial court entered the court’s initial child cus-

tody order; under the UCCJEA, the jurisdictional inquiry entered into by the Italian court was insufficient because the Italian court undertook no analysis of the home state of the child or of any other factors that could be considered a substitute for such but simply found that the prerequisites for jurisdiction over a divorce action were met. Bellew v. Larese, 288 Ga. 495, 706 S.E.2d 78, 2011 Ga. LEXIS 91 (2011).

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. Applicability and application of Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and En-

forcement Act (UCCJEA) to international child custody and support actions, 66 A.L.R.6th 269.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1998–2022 · leading case: Bellew v. Larese, 706 S.E.2d 78 (Ga. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bellew v. Larese, 706 S.E.2d 78 (Ga. 2011). · cites it 6× “OCGA § 19-9-44. 8 A foreign child custody determination must be enforced if it was made “under factual circumstances in substantial conformity with the jurisdictional standards” of the UCCJEA.”

Holt v. Leiter, 501 S.E.2d 879 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “6 See OCGA § 19-9-44. 7 OCGA § 19-9-45 (b). 8 260 Ga.”

Esra Basak Gorelik v. Vladi Gorelik (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 7× “OCGA § 19-9-44 (a). Thus, because the Turkish case was commenced prior to this action, Turkey’s custody determination must be enforced if it was made “under factual circumstances in substantial conformity with the jurisdictional standards” of the UCCJEA.”

Gorelik v. Gorelik, 815 S.E.2d 330 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 8× “OCGA § 19-9-44 (a). Thus, because the Turkish case was commenced prior to this action, Turkey's custody determination must be enforced if it was made "under factual circumstances in substantial conformity with the jurisdictional standards" of the UCCJEA.”

Andrew Rufus Makin v. Katherine Elizabeth Ann Davis (Ga. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “]” OCGA § 19-9-44 (a). 6 jurisdiction in substantial conformity with this article or the determination was made under factual circumstances meeting the jurisdictional standards of this article and the determination has not been modified in accordance with this article.”

In the Interest of E. E. B. W., 733 S.E.2d 369 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 19-9-44 [(a),] (b).” (Citation omitted.”

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.