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

O.C.G.A. § 19-9-64 (2019)

Temporary emergency jurisdiction; continuing effect; communicating with other courts

✓ O.C.G.A. (archive.org 2024 item): print volumes of 2004-2024, per-volume vintage; older volumes partly replaced by 2019 Release 73 text; no 2025 or 2026 Acts
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) A court of this state has temporary emergency jurisdiction if the child is present in this state and the child has been abandoned or it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because the child or a sibling or parent of the child is subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse.

(b) If there is no previous child custody determination that is entitled to be enforced under this article and a child custody proceeding has not been commenced in a court of a state having jurisdiction under Code Sections 19-9-61 through 19-9-63, a child custody determination made under this Code section remains in effect until an order is obtained from a court of a state having jurisdiction under Code Sections 19-9-61 through 19-9-63. If a child custody proceeding has not been or is not commenced in a court of a state having jurisdiction under Code Sections 19-9-61 through 19-9-63, a child custody determination made under this Code section becomes a final determination, if it so provides and this state becomes the home state of the child.

(c) If there is a previous child custody determination that is entitled to be enforced under this article, or a child custody proceeding has been commenced in a court of a state having jurisdiction under Code Sections 19-9-61 and 19-9-63, any order issued by a court of this state under this Code section must specify in the order a period that the court considers adequate to allow the person seeking an order to obtain an order from the state having jurisdiction under Code Sections 19-9-61 through

Annotations

Law reviews. - For annual survey on domestic relations law, see 68 Mercer L. Rev. 107 (2016).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

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).

Temporary emergency jurisdiction properly asserted. - Trial court had temporary emergency jurisdiction in a child custody case because the children were visiting the father in Walker County, which was the location of the trial court, when the order was issued, and the trial court found that the children had been subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse; these were the only two requirements for temporary emergency jurisdiction under O.C.G.A. § 19-9-64. Taylor v. Curl, 298 Ga. App. 45, 679 S.E.2d 80 (2009).

Temporary emergency jurisdiction improperly asserted. - Trial court erred by exercising temporary emergency jurisdiction after the child's mother died since the circumstances and well-being of the child, who was in the physical custody of the child's uncle and in no immediate danger, did not demand immediate action. Prabnarong v. Oudomhack, 334 Ga. App. 723, 780 S.E.2d 393 (2015).

Jurisdiction declined. - When a father made threatening telephone calls from another state to a mother and to their child, a trial court could properly decline to exercise jurisdiction under O.C.G.A. § 19-9-64(a) of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, O.C.G.A. § 19-9-40 et seq., and under the similar jurisdictional provisions of the Parental Kidnapping and Prevention Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1738A, because the child was in no immediate danger as the child continued to be in the mother's custody so there was no true emergency requiring a Georgia court to exercise jurisdiction for the child's protection. Anderson v. Deas, 273 Ga. App. 770, 615 S.E.2d 859 (2005).

In a child custody case between parents who had been living in Michigan but were visiting the wife's parents in Georgia for Thanksgiving, even if there was no basis for emergency jurisdiction under O.C.G.A. § 19-9-64, given that no other state had a pending custody petition before it, the trial court properly considered whether the court had jurisdiction under O.C.G.A. § 19-9-61. Bowman v. Bowman, Ga. App. , S.E.2d (Mar. 6, 2018).

Cited in Baca v. Baca, 256 Ga. App. 514, 568 S.E.2d 746 (2002); Delgado v. Combs, 314 Ga. App. 419, 724 S.E.2d 436 (2012); Black v. Black, 292 Ga. 691, 740 S.E.2d 613 (2013); Plummer v. Plummer, 305 Ga. 23, 823 S.E.2d 258 (2019).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR. - Construction and application of uniform child custody jurisdiction and enforcement act's temporary emergency jurisdiction provision, 53 A.L.R.6th 419.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · 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 18× “On November 4, 2010, Combs filed an Emergency Petition to Modify Custody and Visitation in the Superior Court of Columbia County, Georgia, seeking to invoke the court’s jurisdiction pursuant to OCGA § 19-9-64 “to make a temporary emergency order to protect [A.”
Taylor v. Curl, 679 S.E.2d 80 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 12× “5 However, one exception to this general rule is found in OCGA § 19-9-64, which provides courts with temporary emergency jurisdiction over child custody cases.”
Prabnarong v. Oudomhack, 780 S.E.2d 393 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 22× “” Nonetheless, the court found that it had emergency jurisdiction pursuant to OCGA § 19-9-64 (a) “based upon the Affidavit of Election of [V.”
Markle v. Dass, 797 S.E.2d 868 (Ga. 2017). · cites it 10× “Although Dass contends in this Court that the superior court was empowered to exercise *707 temporary emergency jurisdiction under OCGA § 19-9-64 (a), under these circumstances, [i]t cannot be said that the superior court was empowered to exercise temporary emergency…”
Bellew v. Larese, 706 S.E.2d 78 (Ga. 2011). · cites it 6× “6 OCGA § 19-9-61 reads: (a) Except as otherwise provided in Code Section 19-9-64, a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination only if: (1) This state is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding, or…”
Bowman v. Bowman., 811 S.E.2d 103 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 7× “Luke first argues that the trial court erred in exercising emergency jurisdiction because there was no basis to grant such relief under OCGA § 19-9-64. We find no reversible error.”
Anderson v. Deas, 615 S.E.2d 859 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “4 (a) Anderson argues that the court was presented with an emergency requiring the exercise of UCCJEA jurisdiction under OCGA § 19-9-64 (a). We cannot agree. Deas initially instituted a custody proceeding concerning the child in a Maryland court in August 2002.”
Plummer v. Plummer, 823 S.E.2d 258 (Ga. 2019). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 19-9-62 provides in relevant part: (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…”
Kogel v. Kogel, 786 S.E.2d 518 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 19-9-61 (a) (2) (“Except as otherwise provided in Code Section 19-9-64, a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination only if:.”
Jackson v. Sanomi, 742 S.E.2d 717 (Ga. 2013). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 19-9-64 (a) authorizes temporary emergency jurisdiction only “if the child is present in this state and the child has been abandoned or it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because the child or a sibling or parent of the child is subjected to or threatened…”
Fish v. Fish, 596 S.E.2d 654 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “OCGA§ 19-9-62 (a) provides: (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…”
Baca v. Baca, 568 S.E.2d 746 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “) OCGA § 19-9-64 (a). 21 See OCGA § 19-13-4 (a) (6).”
Show all 28 citing cases →
19-9-64(d): 2 cases
Tashika M. Robinson v. Darrell T. London, Jr., 930 S.E.2d 143 (Ga. Ct. App. 2026).
Shannon Newsome v. Ryan Hawkins, 926 S.E.2d 115 (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.