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) A party to a child custody proceeding, including a modification proceeding, or a petitioner or respondent in a proceeding to enforce or register a child custody determination is not subject to personal jurisdiction in this state for another proceeding or purpose solely by reason of having participated, or of having been physically present for the purpose of participating, in the proceeding. (b) A person who is subject to personal jurisdiction in this state on a basis other than physical presence is not immune from service of process in this state. A party present in this state who is subject to the jurisdiction of another state is not immune from service of process allowable under the laws of that state. (c) The immunity granted by subsection (a) of this Code section does not extend to civil litigation based on acts unrelated to the participation in a proceeding under this article committed by an individual while present in this state.
History
Code 1981, § 19-9-48, enacted by Ga. L. 2001, p. 129, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1983–2002 · leading case: Lightfoot v. Lightfoot, 436 S.E.2d 700 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993).
Lightfoot v. Lightfoot, 436 S.E.2d 700 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4ד201 ( 232 SE2d 76 ) and now contained in OCGA § 19-9-48 (b) that the courts of this state will not exercise jurisdiction in cases such as this.”
Osgood v. Dent, 306 S.E.2d 698 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2דFurthermore, OCGA § 19-9-48 (b) (Code Ann. § 74-509) (UCCJA § 8) prescribes that “Unless required in the interest of the child, the court shall not exercise its jurisdiction to modify a custody decree of another state if the petitioner, without consent of the person entitled to…”
Edwards v. Edwards, 563 S.E.2d 888 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2דSee OCGA § 19-9-48. Further, the SCCB erred in modifying the 3/25/96 Order to Change Custody since it failed, pursuant to the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, to address whether this Court had lost or failed to exercise jurisdiction.”
Patterson v. Patterson, 519 S.E.2d 438 (Ga. 1999). · cites it 2דThe trial court did not rule that the father had wrongfully taken the child from South Carolina and did not rely on OCGA § 19-9-48 (a) in dismissing the case.”
In the Interest of J. S. J., 558 S.E.2d 763 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2ד*176 In addition, OCGA § 19-9-48 (b) provides: Unless required in the interest of the child, the court shall not exercise its jurisdiction to modify a custody decree of another state if the petitioner, without consent of the person entitled to custody, has improperly removed the…”
In Re Jsj, 558 S.E.2d 763 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2דIn addition, OCGA § 19-9-48(b) provides: Unless required in the interest of the child, the court shall not exercise its jurisdiction to modify a custody decree of another state if the petitioner, without consent of the person entitled to custody, has improperly removed the child…”
— 19-9-48(b) — 1 case
In Re Jsj, 558 S.E.2d 763 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). “In addition, OCGA § 19-9-48(b) provides: Unless required in the interest of the child, the court shall not exercise its jurisdiction to modify a custody decree of another state if the petitioner, without consent of the person entitled to custody, has improperly removed the child…”
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.