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) Notice required for the exercise of jurisdiction when a person is outside this state may be given in a manner prescribed by the law of this state for service of process or by the law of the state in which the service is made. Notice must be given in a manner reasonably calculated to give actual notice but may be by publication if other means are not effective. (b) Proof of service may be made in the manner prescribed by the law of this state or by the law of the state in which the service is made. (c) Notice is not required for the exercise of jurisdiction with respect to a person who submits to the jurisdiction of the court.
History
Code 1981, § 19-9-47, enacted by Ga. L. 2001, p. 129, § 1.
Annotations
Cross references. Grounds for exercise of personal juris-
diction over nonresidents generally, § 910-91. Service of process generally, § 9-11-4.
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Personal service on parent in foreign state. - After the first parent took the parties’ child from Georgia to South Carolina, the second parent filed a custody action in Georgia. Personal service of the complaint on the first parent in South
Carolina was sufficient to confer jurisdiction under South Carolina R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1), and hence, was sufficient under O.C.G.A. § 19-9-47 as well. Croft v. Croft, 298 Ga. App. 303, 680 S.E.2d 150, 2009 Ga. App. LEXIS 676 (2009).
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 39 Am. Jur. 2d, Habeas Corpus, §§ 119, 123, 135. C.J.S. 27C C.J.S., Divorce, § 1044 et seq. 39A C.J.S., Habeas Corpus, §§ 273, 344 et seq., 376. 67A C.J.S., Parent and Child, § 95 et seq.
U.L.A. Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (U.L.A.) § 5. ALR. Right of parent to notice and hearing before being deprived of custody of child, 76 A.L.R. 242.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
16
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1984–2022 · leading case:
Lops v. Lops, 140 F.3d 927 (11th Cir. 1998).
Lops v. Lops, 140 F.3d 927 (11th Cir. 1998).
· cites it 12× “2d 210, 213 (1993) (stating that O.C.G.A. § 19-9-47 authorizes interstate transfers).”
Holtsclaw v. Holtsclaw, 496 S.E.2d 262 (Ga. 1998).
· cites it 24× “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.”
At & T CORP. v. Sigala, 549 S.E.2d 373 (Ga. 2001).
· cites it 8× “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…”
McInerney v. McInerney, 870 S.E.2d 721 (Ga. 2022).
· cites it 8× “1 has not been shown to be in “clear and palpable” conflict with the Constitution and there is no 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…”
Mulle v. Yount, 440 S.E.2d 210 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 8× “determination by the Georgia superior court that Tennessee no longer has jurisdiction pursuant to OCGA § 19-9-43 (a) but urges that even if Tennessee no longer meets the requirements for one of these four jurisdictional bases, OCGA § 19-9-47 nevertheless authorizes the Tennessee…”
Croft v. Croft, 680 S.E.2d 150 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 4× “15 OCGA § 19-9-47 (b) also states that “[p]roof of service may be made in the manner prescribed by the law of this state or by the law of the state in which the service is made.”
Patterson v. Patterson, 519 S.E.2d 438 (Ga. 1999).
· cites it 16× “OCGA § 19-9-47 (f); Holtsclaw, supra at 165 ; Norowski v.”
Lopez v. Olson, 724 S.E.2d 837 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “: (1) The issuing court did not have jurisdiction under Part 2 of this article; (2) The child custody determination sought to be registered has been vacated, stayed, or modified by a court having jurisdiction to do so under Part 2 of this article; or (3) The person contesting…”
Arnold v. Jordan, 378 S.E.2d 139 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 4× “To this end, OCGA § 19-9-47 (a) provides that a court with jurisdiction may decline to exercise jurisdiction if it finds that it is an inconvenient forum and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum.”
In Re Jeffries, 979 S.W.2d 429 (Tex. App. 1998).
“See Ga. Code Ann. § 19-9-47 (b); Tex. Fam.Code Ann.”
Spies v. Carpenter, 765 S.E.2d 340 (Ga. 2014).
· cites it 2× “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. This Court…”
Norowski v. Norowski, 483 S.E.2d 577 (Ga. 1997).
· cites it 2× “Additionally, the language of OCGA § 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 .”
— 19-9-47(a) — 1 case
At & T CORP. v. Sigala, 549 S.E.2d 373 (Ga. 2001).
“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…”
— 19-9-47(e)(2) — 2 cases
Lops v. Lops, 140 F.3d 927 (11th Cir. 1998).
“2d 210, 213 (1993) (stating that O.C.G.A. § 19-9-47 authorizes interstate transfers).”
— 19-9-47(h) — 2 cases
Lops v. Lops, 140 F.3d 927 (11th Cir. 1998).
“2d 210, 213 (1993) (stating that O.C.G.A. § 19-9-47 authorizes interstate transfers).”
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.