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).

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).

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).

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. § 19-9-61, 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), cert. denied, No. S12C1106, 2012 Ga. LEXIS 602 (Ga. 2012).

Cited in Jones v. Van Horn, 283 Ga. App. 144, 640 S.E.2d 712 (2006).

ALR.

- Construction and application of Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act's significant connection jurisdiction provision, 52 A.L.R.6th 433.