O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 19-9-50 (2019)

Testimony by deposition; electronic deposition; evidence transmitted by technological means not to be excluded

✓ 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

(a) In addition to other procedures available to a party, a party to a child custody proceeding may offer testimony of witnesses who are located in another state, including testimony of the parties and the child, by deposition or other means allowable in this state for testimony taken in another state. The court on its own motion may order that the testimony of a person be taken in another state and may prescribe the manner in which and the terms upon which the testimony is taken. (b) A court of this state may permit an individual residing in another state to be deposed or to testify by telephone, audiovisual means, or other electronic means before a designated court or at another location in that state. A court of this state shall cooperate with courts of other states in designating an appropriate location for the deposition or testimony. (c) Documentary evidence transmitted from another state to a court of this state by technological means that do not produce an original writing may not be excluded from evidence on an objection based on the means of transmission.

History

Code 1981, § 19-9-50, enacted by Ga. L. 2001, p. 129, § 1.

Annotations

Law reviews. For annual survey on domestic relations, see 69 Mercer L. Rev. 83 (2017).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Grandparent’s appearance by telephone denied. - In a grandparent visitation matter, the trial court did not abuse the court’s discretion in connection with the court’s denial of the grandmother’s request to appear by telephone, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 19-9-50(b), because the trial

court properly determined that the grandmother was not indigent based on the information provided that the grandmother’s monthly income was $4,669. Devlin v. Devlin, 339 Ga. App. 520, 791 S.E.2d 840, 2016 Ga. App. LEXIS 506 (2016).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 24 Am. Jur. 2d, Divorce and Separation, §§ 900, 901, 904, 919 et seq. 39 Am. Jur. 2d, Habeas Corpus, §§ 106, 107. C.J.S. 27C C.J.S., Divorce, § 1036 et seq. 39A

C.J.S., Habeas Corpus, § 283 et seq. 67A C.J.S., Parent and Child, § 97. U.L.A. Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (U.L.A.) § 10.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1990–2016 · leading case: Brooks v. Carson, 390 S.E.2d 859 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Brooks v. Carson, 390 S.E.2d 859 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 10× “OCGA § 19-9-50 requires Ms. Carson to be made a party to the father’s suit because she has physical custody of the child.”
Devlin v. Devlin, 791 S.E.2d 840 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “She contends that the trial court erred in: (1) denying her requests to present telephonic testimony under OCGA § 19-9-50 (b); (2) denying her request to participate in a mediation by telephone; (3) failing to determine whether she could “travel to Georgia without financial…”
Ronnie Drawdy v. Mary Sasser, 782 S.E.2d 706 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “They were therefore proper defendants in an action seeking custody of the children, irrespective of their right to affirmatively seek custody in their favor. See OCGA § 9-11-19 (a) (joinder of parties).”
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.