O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 19-9-46 (2019)

Priority of question of jurisdiction

✓ 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

If a question of existence or exercise of jurisdiction under this article is raised in a child custody proceeding, the question, upon request of a party, must be given priority on the calendar and handled expeditiously.

History

Code 1981, § 19-9-46, enacted by Ga. L. 2001, p. 129, § 1.

Annotations

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. Inquiry into jurisdiction. - Because the parties’ Texas divorce action had been abated due to an earlier Mexican divorce,

there was no action pending in Texas; therefore, the trial court did not have to inquire into the court’s jurisdiction under the former Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, O.C.G.A. § 19-9-40 et seq. Baca v. Baca, 256 Ga. App. 514, 568 S.E.2d 746, 2002 Ga. App. LEXIS 856 (2002), cert. denied, No. S02C1775, 2002 Ga. LEXIS 901 (Ga. Sept. 30, 2002) (decided under former Code Section 19-9-40 et seq.).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 17 cases, 1983–2009 · leading case: Gainey v. Olivo, 373 S.E.2d 4 (Ga. 1988).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gainey v. Olivo, 373 S.E.2d 4 (Ga. 1988). · cites it 6× “Olivo contends that under OCGA § 19-9-46 (a), a provision of the* UCCJA as adopted in Georgia, the trial court erred in not staying the Gaineys’ adoption petition pending disposition of his previously filed New York custody proceeding.”

Osgood v. Dent, 306 S.E.2d 698 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 5× “§ 74-510), and the record gives no indication that the Richmond Superior Court on its own motion made the inquiries mandated by OCGA § 19-9-46 (Code Ann. § 74-507). Furthermore, OCGA § 19-9-48 (b) (Code Ann.”

Thompson v. Thompson, 526 S.E.2d 576 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 8× “The UCCJA contains no express requirements concerning personal jurisdiction and, in fact, authorizes a court to assume jurisdiction over a custody dispute notwithstanding the absence of a connection between the state and a parent or contestant. In a sense, UCCJA jurisdiction is…”

Baca v. Baca, 568 S.E.2d 746 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 19-9-46 (a) (2000) provides that [a] court of this state shall not exercise its jurisdiction under [the UCCJA] if at the time of filing the petition a proceeding concerning the custody of the child was pending in a court of another state exercising jurisdiction…”

Goldstein v. Goldstein, 494 S.E.2d 745 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 4× “She contends that pursuant to OCGA § 19-9-46 (a) of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (“UCCJA”) (OCGA § 19-9-40 et seq.”

Croft v. Croft, 680 S.E.2d 150 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “381, 382 ( 427 SE2d 851 ) (1993) (decided under former Code Section 19-9-46 (a)). 14 OCGA § 19-9-61 (c).”

Henderson v. Just., 514 S.E.2d 713 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 19-9-46 (c) provides, in pertinent part, that “[if a] court [of this state] is informed that a proceeding was commenced in another state after it assumed jurisdiction, it shall likewise inform the other court, to the end that the issues may be litigated in the more…”

Gouse v. Wilson, 428 S.E.2d 571 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 6× “Although the Ohio court asserts that independent of the consent order it has jurisdiction under the UCCJA, this is not so: Section 19-9-46 of the UCCJA prohibits Ohio from exercising UCCJA jurisdiction because this custody proceeding was “pending in [Georgia] exercising…”

Mulle v. Yount, 440 S.E.2d 210 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to the provisions of OCGA § 19-9-47, a court with custody jurisdiction as provided by OCGA § 19-9-43 (a) is nevertheless authorized to stay its own proceedings or transfer the case upon a determination that the court of another state, which also has a jurisdictional…”

Gordon v. Gordon, 363 S.E.2d 353 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “The Act further provides that “[a] court of this state shall not exercise its jurisdiction under this article if at the time of filing the petition a proceeding concerning the custody of the child was pending in a court of another state exercising jurisdiction substantially in…”

In Re Jeffries, 979 S.W.2d 429 (Tex. App. 1998). “; Ga. Code Ann. § 19-9-46 (a) (Georgia cannot exercise jurisdiction in a custody proceeding if a proceeding is pending in another state with jurisdiction under the UCCJA at the time the Georgia petition is filed, unless the other court stays its proceeding under the inconvenient…”

Jackson v. Jackson, 328 S.E.2d 733 (Ga. 1985). · cites it 2× “, including OCGA § 19-9-46 (c), shall apply.”

Show all 17 citing cases →

— 19-9-46(a) — 2 cases

Goldstein v. Goldstein, 494 S.E.2d 745 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). “She contends that pursuant to OCGA § 19-9-46 (a) of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (“UCCJA”) (OCGA § 19-9-40 et seq.”

Thompson v. Thompson, 526 S.E.2d 576 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). “The UCCJA contains no express requirements concerning personal jurisdiction and, in fact, authorizes a court to assume jurisdiction over a custody dispute notwithstanding the absence of a connection between the state and a parent or contestant. In a sense, UCCJA jurisdiction is…”

— 19-9-46(c) — 1 case

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.