O.C.G.A.
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.
A child custody determination made by a court of this state that had jurisdiction under this article binds all persons who have been served in accordance with the laws of this state or notified in accordance with Code Section 19-9-47 or who have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court, and who have been given an opportunity to be heard. As to those persons, the determination is conclusive as to all decided issues of law and fact except to the extent the determination is modified.
History
Code 1981, § 19-9-45, enacted by Ga. L. 2001, p. 129, § 1.
Annotations
Law reviews. For annual survey on domestic relations law, see 64 Mercer L. Rev. 121 (2012).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Res judicata did not bar custody petition. - Since a previous visitation order related to the grandparent’s right to visitation, not custody, and the legal issues to be decided varied, the trial court properly determined that res judicata did not bar the grandparents’ petition for cus-
tody under the Uniform Child Jurisdiction and Custody Act, O.C.G.A. § 19-9-40 et seq.; the Act does not provide that the judgment is conclusive as to all issues which could have been put in issue. Scott v. Scott, 311 Ga. App. 726, 716 S.E.2d 809, 2011 Ga. App. LEXIS 831 (2011).
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 39 Am. Jur. 2d, Habeas Corpus, §§ 119, 135. C.J.S. 27C C.J.S., Divorce, § 1036 et seq. 39A C.J.S., Habeas Corpus, §§ 273, 344 et seq., 376. 67A C.J.S., Parent and Child, §§ 95, 96.
U.L.A. Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (U.L.A.) § 4. ALR. Right of parent to notice and hearing before being deprived of custody of child, 76 A.L.R. 242. Award of custody of child where contest
is between child’s mother and grandparent, 29 A.L.R.3d 366. Divorce: necessity of notice of application for temporary custody of child, 31 A.L.R.3d 1378. Right, in child custody proceedings, to cross-examine investigating officer whose
report is used by court in its decision, 59 A.L.R.3d 1337. Necessity of requiring presence in court of both parties in proceedings relating to custody or visitation of children, 15 A.L.R.4th 864.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases, 1984–2011 · leading case:
Scott v. Scott, 716 S.E.2d 809 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011).
Scott v. Scott, 716 S.E.2d 809 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 6× “OCGA § 19-9-45. The Act defines “child custody determination” as *732 “a judgment, decree, or other order of a court providing for the legal custody, physical custody, or visitation with respect to a child.”
Goldstein v. Goldstein, 494 S.E.2d 745 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 8× “[3] (b) Appellant's arguments regarding a jurisdictional "conflict" between the Swiss District Court of Hinwil's pending proceedings and the proceedings in Cobb County have been rendered moot by the Higher Court of the Canton of Zurich's determination that the proceedings in…”
Daniels v. Barnes, 658 S.E.2d 472 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “Second, unlike the UCCJA, the UCCJEA specifically addresses continuing jurisdiction of custody issues, and the lower court here applied one such provision to determine that it retained jurisdiction over Daniels because a Rhode Island court would not be more convenient.”
Hall v. Wellborn, 673 S.E.2d 341 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “But see OCGA § 19-9-45 (child custody determinations under the UCCJEA bind only “persons who have been served .”
Holt v. Leiter, 501 S.E.2d 879 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “7 OCGA § 19-9-45 (b). 8 260 Ga. 731 ( 399 SE2d 64 ) (1991).”
Fortson v. Fortson, 421 S.E.2d 106 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “See also OCGA § 19-9-45 (a) (1 & 2). The parties agree that the service did not comply with Georgia law, and therefore, is not valid unless it complies with California law.”
Binns v. Smith, 310 S.E.2d 225 (Ga. 1984).
· cites it 8× “Thereafter, the former husband filed an application in the Superior Court of Whitfield County to change custody of the two children, and sought to perfect service on the former wife under the terms of OCGA § 19-9-45 (a) (2) (Code Ann. § 74-506), in the manner apparently…”
Mezquita v. Campbell, 519 S.E.2d 27 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “In so doing, the court *397 concluded that the appropriate service procedures of OCGA §§ 19-9-45 (a) (3) and (4) and 9-11-4 had been followed.”
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.