...231, 400 S.E.2d 239, 242 (1990). [13] See Chambers, 519 N.E.2d at 372 n. 3 (listing 33 jurisdictions that had adopted the common-law rule through case law compared to six states that had enacted the doctrine by statute or rule as of 1988); see also OCGA § 19-9-47 (applying forum non conveniens doctrine as part of Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act)....

...at 165, 496 S.E.2d 262 (constitution gives husband the right to litigate his divorce action in the county of his residence); see also Patterson, 271 Ga. at 308, 519 S.E.2d 438 (trial court must determine whether Georgia is inconvenient forum for resident husband in child custody action under OCGA § 19-9-47(a)).

...gia for a brief visit, but he refused to return the child to her. The trial court entered a temporary order awarding custody to Wife. Wife then withdrew her previous motion and filed a motion to transfer the custody issue to Mississippi. Citing OCGA § 19-9-47(e)(1), the trial court dismissed the child custody proceedings based on its finding that Georgia was an inconvenient forum and that the child had a much closer connection with Mississippi....

...d for discretionary appeal. The application was granted in order to determine whether a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties may dismiss a divorce petition if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum under OCGA § 19-9-47....

...forum non conveniens is generally controlled by statutory provisions. Gay v. Piggly Wiggly Southern, Inc., 183 Ga.App. 175, 182(4), 358 S.E.2d 468 (1987); Smith v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga., 165 Ga.App. 565, 302 S.E.2d 124 (1983). OCGA § 19-9-47 recognizes the applicability of the doctrine in the limited context of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. By its terms, OCGA § 19-9-47(a) authorizes a court of this state to decline to exercise its jurisdiction to make a child custody determination "if it finds that it is an inconvenient forum ... under the circumstances of the case and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum." This case involves a contest between Husband and Wife concerning the custody of their minor child, and OCGA § 19-9-47 clearly authorized the trial court to decline to exercise its jurisdiction over that custody determination based upon the requisite finding that it was an inconvenient forum and that a Mississippi court was a more appropriate forum. However, this case also involves the issue of Husband's and Wife's divorce. In that regard, OCGA § 19-9-47(f) provides: "If a custody determination is incidental to an action for divorce ..., the court may decline to exercise its jurisdiction under this article while retaining jurisdiction over the divorce...." (Emphasis supplied.) Thus, the issue presented for resolution is whether OCGA § 19-9-47(f) is statutory authority for a trial court of this state to decline to exercise its jurisdiction over both the custody determination and the divorce....

...841, 483 S.E.2d 577 (1997) (Uniform Superior Court Rule 24.7 not authority for dismissal of Georgia divorce action based upon pending Mississippi custody proceeding). "May" usually "denotes permission and not command." OCGA § 1-3-3(10). Thus, Wife urges that OCGA § 19-9-47(f) vests a trial court with the discretionary authority either to retain jurisdiction over the divorce or to *264 decline to exercise its jurisdiction over both the custody and divorce issues. However, the statute nowhere expressly provides that the trial court "may" decline to exercise its jurisdiction over the divorce. According to its terms, OCGA § 19-9-47(f) only provides that a trial court "may" decline to exercise its jurisdiction over the custody determination while retaining its jurisdiction over the divorce....

...The doctrine of forum non conveniens cannot be used to deprive Husband of his right under the state constitution to litigate his divorce action in the superior court of the county of his residence. See Richards v. Johnson, 219 Ga. 771, 776(2), 135 S.E.2d 881 (1964). Thus, the word "may" in OCGA § 19-9-47(f) cannot be construed as a permissive authorization for a trial court to refuse to exercise its jurisdiction over both a divorce and a custody proceeding. The only construction of OCGA § 19-9-47(f) which is consistent with the Georgia Constitution is as a limited grant of discretionary authority for a trial court to dismiss the custody issue while retaining its mandatory jurisdiction over a pending divorce action. The trial court was authorized to dismiss the custody proceeding in accordance with OCGA § 19-9-47(e)(1), but erred in dismissing the divorce proceeding as well....

...de Georgia violates due process of law or some other constitutional right of the parties, we see no constraint in the Georgia Constitution on the General Assembly’s power to provide trial courts with the 2 Holtsclaw held that while OCGA § 19-9-47 (a) “authorizes a court of this state to decline to exercise its jurisdiction to make a child custody determination ‘if it finds that it is an inconvenient forum ....

...But Holtsclaw was decided before the enactment of OCGA § 9-10-31.1, which applies to all civil actions. See Spies v. Carpenter, 296 Ga. 131, 133 (1) (765 SE2d 340) (2014) (noting that OCGA § 9-10-31.1 “could serve to modify the holding in Holtsclaw” where the new statute, rather than OCGA § 19-9-47, was invoked to support a forum non conveniens motion). 13 authority to dismiss a divorce suit consistent with the principles of forum non conveniens. Because there does not appear to be any pr...

...Husband sought, and this Court granted, discretionary review to decide “whether a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties may dismiss a divorce petition if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum under [former] OCGA § 19-9-47.” Id....

...Holtsclaw, 269 Ga. 163, 163-164 (496 SE2d 262) (1998). Even where a court properly declines to exercise its jurisdiction over a child custody determination as an inconvenient forum, the court must retain jurisdiction over a properly filed divorce action. OCGA § 19-9-47 (f); Holtsclaw, supra at 165; Norowski v. Norowski, 267 Ga. 841 (483 SE2d 577) (1997). The parties do not dispute that Mr. Patterson may properly bring a divorce action in Clayton County, and the trial court erred in dismissing the divorce portion of the suit. 2. Under OCGA § 19-9-47 (a), a court that has jurisdiction over an initial child custody petition may nonetheless decline to exercise that jurisdiction if it finds that it is an inconvenient forum, and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum.4 “In determin*308ing if it is an inconvenient forum, the court shall consider if it is in the interest of the child that another state assume jurisdiction.” OCGA § 19-9-47 (c)....

...Here the court did not find that it was in the interest of the child that South Carolina assume jurisdiction; the court’s only statement on the matter was that dismissing the Georgia case “may not be in the best interest of everybody.” Further, OCGA § 19-9-47 (c) lists a variety of factors that a court may consider, among others, when determining if ruling that the court is an inconvenient forum is in the child’s interest. The court relied on one of these factors, the child’s closer connection with South Carolina. See OCGA § 19-9-47 (c) (2)....

...Bradley, for appellee. The trial court made no inquiry into whether the law of South Carolina would allow a court of that state to exercise jurisdiction in this case. Without such an inquiry, the court could not determine whether a South Carolina court might be a better forum. See OCGA § 19-9-47 (a).5 A court’s authority to dismiss a custody proceeding under OCGA § 19-9-47 is discretionary....

...Here, the court dismissed the child custody proceeding without sufficient inquiry and, under the facts of this case, this was an abuse of its discretion. The case must be remanded for a determination of whether, under the standards set forth in OCGA § 19-9-47, the court is an inconvenient forum for the child custody proceeding.6 Judgment reversed and case remanded with direction. All the Justices concur. The record in this case contains nothing from the South Carolina action. She had rais...

...While two statutes preclude a court from exercising jurisdiction in a child custody case when that issue is pending in another state, [3] no statutes address the effect of a pending divorce action in another state on the jurisdiction of a Georgia court. Additionally, the language of O.C.G.A. § 19-9-47(f) expressly anticipates that courts of different states may decide different issues: "[i]f a custody determination is incidental to an action for divorce ..., the court may decline to exercise [child custody jurisdiction] while r...