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

O.C.G.A. § 19-9-63 (2019)

Prerequisites for modifying custody determination from foreign court

✓ 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

Except as otherwise provided in Code Section 19-9-64, a court of this state may not modify a child custody determination made by a court of another state unless a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial determination under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) of Code Section 19-9-61 and: (1) The court of the other state determines it no longer has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under Code Section 19-9-62 or that a court of this state would be a more convenient forum under Code Section 19-9-67; or (2) A court of this state or a court of the other state determines that neither the child nor the child’s parents or any person acting as a parent presently resides in the other state.

History

Code 1981, § 19-9-63, enacted by Ga. L. 2001, p. 129, § 1.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Jurisdiction. - Trial court did not abuse the court’s discretion by exercising jurisdiction because the Connecticut court’s determination was that the court no longer had exclusive continuing jurisdiction over custody matters regarding the children and the children had resided in Georgia with their mother and maternal grandparents for more than two years. Richello v. Wilkinson, 361 Ga. App. 703, 865 S.E.2d 571, 2021 Ga. App. LEXIS 543 (2021). Custody can only be relitigated where legal custodian resides. - 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). Other state no longer has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction. - In a Georgia action to modify an Alaska child custody determination, the Georgia trial court properly assumed jurisdiction pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 19-9-63 because during a telephone conversation between the Georgia and the Alaska courts, the Alaska court determined that it no longer had exclusive continuing jurisdiction under

the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, O.C.G.A. § 19-9-40 et seq., that Georgia was the home state of the children, and that the Georgia court was the more appropriate forum. Lopez v. Olson, 314 Ga. App. 533, 724 S.E.2d 837, 2012 Ga. App. LEXIS 228 (2012). Court had jurisdiction to modify foreign judgment. - Given the findings that the children and parents no longer resided in South Carolina and that Georgia was the home state of the children at the time the action was filed, the trial court properly assumed jurisdiction to try proceedings filed in the Georgia court seeking to modify the South Carolina court custody determination. Weiss v. Grant, 346 Ga. App. 208, 816 S.E.2d 335, 2018 Ga. App. LEXIS 356 (2018). Lack of subject matter jurisdiction. - Georgia trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to modify a Kansas custody determination under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), O.C.G.A. § 19-9-40 et seq., because, while Georgia was the child’s home state under O.C.G.A. § 19-961, Georgia failed to satisfy the remaining requirements of O.C.G.A. § 19-9-63 since the Kansas court never made a determination that it no longer had continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the custody issue or that Georgia provided a more convenient forum than Kansas. Furthermore, although the Georgia court determined that neither the child nor the parents were presently residing in Kansas, the court erred in doing so. Delgado v. Combs, 314 Ga. App. 419, 724 S.E.2d 436, 2012 Ga. App. LEXIS 206 (2012), cert. denied, No. S12C1106, 2012 Ga. LEXIS 602 (Ga. June 18, 2012).

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. Construction and application of Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and En-

forcement Act’s significant connection jurisdiction provision, 52 A.L.R.6th 433.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case: Delgado v. Combs, 724 S.E.2d 436 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Delgado v. Combs, 724 S.E.2d 436 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 22× “” Thus, the court determined that it had temporary emergency jurisdiction pursuant to OCGA § 19-9-64 (a) and jurisdiction to permanently modify the prior custody determination by Kansas pursuant to OCGA § 19-9-63. In this regard, the trial court found that A.”
Lopez v. Olson, 724 S.E.2d 837 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 6× “Based on the Alaska court’s determination, the Georgia court assumed jurisdiction pursuant to OCGA § 19-9-63 of the UCCJEA and consolidated the petitions filed by the Olsons and Criste seeking to modify the prior Alaska court custody determination.”
Roach v. Breeden, 777 S.E.2d 689 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 10× “at 426 (1); see also OCGA § 19-9-63. As a preliminary matter, there is no question that the Tennessee Juvenile Court order adopting Roach’s and Breeden’s parenting plan was an initial custody determination.”
Goldstein v. Goldstein, 494 S.E.2d 745 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 4× “[3] OCGA § 19-9-63 states "[t]he general policies of [the UCCJA] extend to the international area.”
Jackson v. Sanomi, 742 S.E.2d 717 (Ga. 2013). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 19-9-63. This provision makes it clear that, in order for a court in this state to modify the custody ruling of a foreign jurisdiction, the requirements of paragraphs (1) or (2) of OCGA § 19-9-61 (a) *890 Decided May 6, 2013.”
Edwards v. Edwards, 563 S.E.2d 888 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 19-9-63. The record shows that these requirements were met.”
Prabnarong v. Oudomhack, 780 S.E.2d 393 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “4 OCGA § 19-9-63. 5 230 Ga. App. 427 ( 496 SE2d 544 ) (1998).”
Anthony H. v. MATTHEW G., 725 S.E.2d 132 (S.C. Ct. App. 2012). “§ 63-15-334 (2010); accord Ga.Code Ann. § 19-9-63 (2001). However, subsection A of section 63 — 15— 340 of the South Carolina Code (2010) requires South Carolina family courts to stay any child custody proceeding if another state’s court has jurisdiction over the proceeding and…”
Weiss v. Grant., 816 S.E.2d 335 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 19-9-63, which is part of the UCCJEA, provides in pertinent part that a court of this state may not modify a child custody determination made by a court in another state unless a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial determination under paragraph (1) or…”
DeVito v. DeVito, 628 S.E.2d 108 (Ga. 2006). “Unlike the Connecticut case on which she relies, the UCCJEA in Georgia requires only that the initial child custody determination be entered "consistent with" OCGA § 19-9-61 or § 19-9-63. (Emphasis supplied.) OCGA § 19-9-62(a).”
Hatch v. Hatch, 652 S.E.2d 874 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007). “9 SeeOCGA§ 19-9-62 (a) (except as provided in OCGA§ 19-9-64, a court of this state which has made a child custody determination consistent with OCGA § 19-9-61 or § 19-9-63 has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction); see Upchurch v.”
Tarvella Razi v. Shalonda Burns (Ga. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 19× “8 OCGA § 19-9-63 (2) (emphasis supplied)8; see also Cal.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— 19-9-63(2) — 1 case
Tashika M. Robinson v. Darrell T. London, Jr. (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.