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

O.C.G.A. § 19-9-62 (2019)

Prerequisites for termination of exclusive, continuing 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

(a) Except as otherwise provided in Code Section 19-9-64, a court of this state which has made a child custody determination consistent with Code Section 19-9-61 or 19-9-63 has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the determination until: (1) A court of this state determines that neither the child nor the child’s parents or any person acting as a parent has a significant connection with this state and that substantial evidence is no longer available in this state concerning the child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships; or (2) A court of this state or a court of another state determines that neither the child nor the child’s parents or any person acting as a parent presently resides in this state. (b) A court of this state which has made a child custody determination and does not have exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under this Code section may modify that determination only if it has jurisdiction to make an initial determination under Code Section 19-9-61.

History

Code 1981, § 19-9-62, enacted by Ga. L. 2001, p. 129, § 1.

Annotations

Law reviews. For survey article on domestic relations law, see 60 Mercer L. Rev. 121 (2008).

For annual survey on domestic relations, see 70 Mercer L. Rev. 81 (2018). For annual survey on domestic relations, see 71 Mercer L. Rev. 83 (2019).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Constitutionality. - O.C.G.A. § 19-962(a) did not violate Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. II, Para. VI; a trial court correctly ruled that the court had subject matter jurisdiction over a father’s post-decree child custody modification action pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 19-9-62 and that personal jurisdiction over the mother was unnecessary in order for the court to address the requested modification. Devito v. Devito, 280 Ga. 367, 628 S.E.2d 108, 2006 Ga. LEXIS 201 (2006). Court had subject matter jurisdiction. - Under O.C.G.A. § 19-9-62, the juvenile court properly exercised subject matter jurisdiction to terminate the parental rights of the adoptive parents to the child, born in and a citizen of Zambia, but who, at the time of the termination proceedings, had lived in Fulton County for at least six consecutive months with persons acting as her parents. In the Interest of E. E. B. W., 318 Ga. App. 65, 733 S.E.2d 369, 2012 Ga. App. LEXIS 851 (2012), cert. denied, No. S13C0337, 2013 Ga. LEXIS 350 (Ga. Apr. 15, 2013). Trial court did not err in declining to relinquish jurisdiction of the custody action to Virginia under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, O.C.G.A. § 19-9-40 et seq., because a Georgia court made the initial custody determination in the case and had exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the matter. Hooper v. Townsend, 362 Ga. App. 532, 868 S.E.2d 286, 2022 Ga. App. LEXIS 27 (2022). Jurisdiction to modify custody determination entered before UCCJEA. - There was no merit to a mother’s argument that the trial court lacked jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), O.C.G.A. § 19-9-40 et seq., to modify its child custody determination because it was made before the UCCJEA was enacted; the UCCJEA in Georgia required only that the initial child custody determination be entered “consistent with” O.C.G.A. § 19-9-61 or O.C.G.A.

§ 19-9-63. Devito v. Devito, 280 Ga. 367, 628 S.E.2d 108, 2006 Ga. LEXIS 201 (2006). Jurisdiction determined at time of filing petition. - Judgment affirming the trial court’s ruling dismissing a father’s child custody modification petition was reversed because jurisdiction attached at the time of the filing of the father’s petition; thus, the trial court had jurisdiction over the modification action since the father lived in Georgia at the time and jurisdiction was not lost when the father later was transferred away from Georgia. Plummer v. Plummer, 305 Ga. 23, 823 S.E.2d 258, 2019 Ga. LEXIS 17 (2019). Venue for motion to modify custody. - Fulton County court did not err in transferring a father’s custody modification petition to the Cobb County court under both O.C.G.A. §§ 19-9-61 and 19-962(a) as Cobb County was the proper forum to hear the modification petition, despite the fact that the divorce and original custody order was heard in Fulton County, given that: (1) the mother and the children later moved to Cobb County; (2) the Cobb County Court entered a custody order; and (3) the Cobb County court thereafter maintained exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over its own child custody determination. Upchurch v. Smith, 281 Ga. 28, 635 S.E.2d 710, 2006 Ga. LEXIS 599 (2006). Trial court erred by granting a parent’s complaint for modification of child custody and support and changing custody, which was filed in that parent’s county of residence, as that county was not the jurisdiction wherein the issue of custody and support was originally litigated and the opposing parent never waived the challenge to the jurisdiction of the trial court via a pro se letter, which merely acknowledged receipt of the complaint; as a result, the judgment granting the change of custody was reversed and the case was remanded to the trial court with directions for the trial court to transfer the case to

the trial court of the proper county. Hatch v. Hatch, 287 Ga. App. 832, 652 S.E.2d 874, 2007 Ga. App. LEXIS 1113 (2007). Exclusive, continuing jurisdiction lost. - While a mother claimed that a Bibb County, Georgia court had exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, O.C.G.A. § 19-9-40 et seq., since the court made an initial custody ruling, that jurisdiction was lost under O.C.G.A. § 19-9-62(a) when a Florida court determined in a paternity proceeding that both parents and the child resided in Florida. Hall v. Wellborn, 295 Ga. App. 884, 673 S.E.2d 341, 2009 Ga. App. LEXIS 103 (2009). Jurisdiction over grandparents’ modification action. - Because the

Georgia superior court had exclusive and continuing subject matter jurisdiction over the grandparents’ modification of custody action, as there was no evidence to suggest that the initial 2001 custody determination was not made consistent with O.C.G.A. § 19-9-61, even without personal jurisdiction over the child’s parent, the custody determination entered by the superior court was upheld on appeal; but, absent personal jurisdiction over the mother to enter a contempt order, such was reversed. Daniels v. Barnes, 289 Ga. App. 897, 658 S.E.2d 472, 2008 Ga. App. LEXIS 226 (2008), cert. denied, No. S08C1148, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 595 (Ga. June 16, 2008).

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. Construction and application of Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act’s significant connection jurisdiction provision, 52 A.L.R.6th 433. Construction and application of Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act’s home state jurisdiction provision, 57 A.L.R.6th 163. Construction and application of Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and En-

forcement Act’s exclusive, continuing jurisdiction provision - no significant connection/substantial evidence, A.L.R.6th 161. Construction and application of Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act’s exclusive, continuing jurisdiction provision - other than no significant connection/substantial evidence, 60 A.L.R.6th 193.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 39 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Plummer v. Plummer, 823 S.E.2d 258 (Ga. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Plummer v. Plummer, 823 S.E.2d 258 (Ga. 2019). · cites it 26× “The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling, and we granted Father's petition for certiorari posing the following question: "Did the trial court properly dismiss the custody modification action for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to OCGA § 19-9-62 (a) (2) ?" We conclude…”
Plummer v. Plummer, 804 S.E.2d 179 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 22× “Christopher Plummer (“the father”) appeals the dismissal of his custody modification action, arguing that the superior court erred by determining that it lacked jurisdiction to modify custody pursuant to OCGA § 19-9-62 (a) (2). For the following reasons, we affirm.”
Fish v. Fish, 596 S.E.2d 654 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 14× “This Court hereby determines that, pursuant to OCGA§ 19-9-62, neither the child nor the [mother] has a significant connection with Georgia and that substantial evidence is no longer available in Georgia concerning the child’s care, protection, training, and personal…”
Delgado v. Combs, 724 S.E.2d 436 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4× “36 OCGA § 19-9-68 (a) (l)-(3); see also OCGA § 19-9-61 (describing the criteria for Georgia to have jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination, including that Georgia be the child’s home state); OCGA § 19-9-62 (providing the criteria for exclusive, continuing…”
Daniels v. Barnes, 658 S.E.2d 472 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 6× “That court then retains “exclusive, continuing jurisdiction [of] the determination” if the first determination was made “consistent with” OCGA § 19-9-61 (or another Code section not applicable here) so long as either the child or a parent resides in the state or either the…”
DeVito v. DeVito, 628 S.E.2d 108 (Ga. 2006). · cites it 12× “The trial court found it lacked personal jurisdiction over appellant insofar as appellee's contempt proceeding was concerned but held as to the modification action that it had subject matter jurisdiction as the court that made the initial child custody determination; that…”
Upchurch v. Smith, 635 S.E.2d 710 (Ga. 2006). · cites it 12× “However, the applicable provision of the UCCJEA is OCGA § 19-9-62 (a), which recognizes that exclusive continuing jurisdiction lies in the court of this State “which has made a child custody determination consistent with [OCGA § 19-9-61]” until: (1) a court of this State…”
Taylor v. Curl, 679 S.E.2d 80 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “4 See OCGA § 19-9-62 (a) (pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, “[elxcept as otherwise provided in Code Section 19-9-64, a court of this state which has made a child custody determination consistent with Code Section 19-9-61 or 19-9-63 has…”
Hall v. Wellborn, 673 S.E.2d 341 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 6× “5 Even though the father was not a party to or served in that action, we note that the UCCJEA provides that “[plhysical presence of, or personal jurisdiction over, a party or a child is not necessary or sufficient to make a child custody determination.”
Bailey v. Bailey, 641 S.E.2d 580 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “The court did not grant this motion to dismiss or transfer the counterclaim under OCGA § 19-9-23, but instead transferred the entire case (including the *362 father’s claims) to Fulton County, reasoning that under OCGA § 19-9-62 (a), the Fulton County court had exclusive,…”
Oglesby v. Deal, 716 S.E.2d 749 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 19-9-62 (a). Under these circumstances, personal jurisdiction over the parties for a modification of custody is not required.”
Murillo v. Murillo, 684 S.E.2d 126 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “It is undisputed that the Fulton County Superior Court rendered a prior child custody determination consistent with the UCCJEA, and that Mr.”
Show all 39 citing cases →
— 19-9-62(a) — 3 cases
DeVito v. DeVito, 628 S.E.2d 108 (Ga. 2006). “The trial court found it lacked personal jurisdiction over appellant insofar as appellee's contempt proceeding was concerned but held as to the modification action that it had subject matter jurisdiction as the court that made the initial child custody determination; that…”
Anthony H. v. MATTHEW G., 725 S.E.2d 132 (S.C. Ct. App. 2012).
Shannon Newsome v. Ryan Hawkins (Ga. Ct. App. 2026).
— 19-9-62(a)(1) — 1 case
Rw v. Gw, 2 So. 3d 869 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008).
— 19-9-62(a)(2) — 2 cases
In Re Kw, 662 S.E.2d 255 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008).
Shannon Newsome v. Ryan Hawkins (Ga. Ct. App. 2026).
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.