Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, annotations decided under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, former Code 1933, §§ 74-501 through 74-525, subsequently codified as §§ 19-9-40 through19-9-64, are included in the annotations for this Code section.

Purpose.

- Former § 19-9-47 was not a separate grant of jurisdiction over interstate child custody proceedings, but established a discretionary abstention doctrine. Mulle v. Yount, 211 Ga. App. 584, 440 S.E.2d 210 (1993) (decided under former Code Section § 19-9-47).

Limited jurisdiction.

- When the trial court held that the court did not have jurisdiction over child custody because of the pendency of an appeal in another state, custody ceased to be a contestable issue, and the court was not precluded from addressing issues over which the court had jurisdiction, including divorce. Norowski v. Norowski, 267 Ga. 841, 483 S.E.2d 577 (1997) (decided under former Code Section § 19-9-47).

While a trial court had a limited grant of authority under subsection (f) of former § 19-9-47 to dismiss a custody proceeding on the ground of forum non conveniens, it could not dismiss the divorce proceeding as well. Holtsclaw v. Holtsclaw, 269 Ga. 163, 496 S.E.2d 262 (1998); Patterson v. Patterson, 271 Ga. 306, 519 S.E.2d 438 (1999) (decided under former Code Section § 19-9-47).

Although a trial court was authorized to dismiss the child custody portion of a husband's case on the basis of forum non conveniens under O.C.G.A. § 19-9-67(a), the trial court erred in dismissing the husband's divorce case as well because he had a right to litigate his divorce in his county of residence. Although the trial court could arguably decline to exercise jurisdiction over the divorce case under O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1, the trial court did not invoke § 9-10-31.1 or consider the factors that statute enumerated. Spies v. Carpenter, 296 Ga. 131, 765 S.E.2d 340 (2014).

Georgia trial court had jurisdiction.

- Trial court erred in dismissing a husband's divorce complaint on the ground that jurisdiction was properly with the Italian court because the trial court had jurisdiction to make the initial custody determination under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), O.C.G.A. § 19-9-40 et seq., specifically O.C.G.A. § 19-9-61(a) and (b), and no other court did since Georgia was the only state, including Italy, that could qualify as the "home state" of the parties' child pursuant to the UCCJEA, O.C.G.A. § 19-9-41(7), at the time either the Italian custody proceeding or the Georgia proceeding was commenced and at the time the trial court entered its initial child custody order; under the UCCJEA, the jurisdictional inquiry entered into by the Italian court was insufficient because the Italian court undertook no analysis of the home state of the child or of any other factors that could be considered a substitute for such but simply found that the prerequisites for jurisdiction over a divorce action were met. Bellew v. Larese, 288 Ga. 495, 706 S.E.2d 78 (2011).

Inquiry required.

- Trial court erred in dismissing a child custody proceeding without an inquiry into whether the law of the other state involved in the case would allow a court of that state to exercise jurisdiction. Patterson v. Patterson, 271 Ga. 306, 519 S.E.2d 438 (1999) (decided under former Code Section § 19-9-47).

Findings on all statutory factors required.

- It is an abuse of discretion for a trial court not to address each of the seven factors listed in O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1(a), and in order to ensure that the trial court's decision-making process was guided by the statutory requirements, the trial court must make specific findings either in writing or orally on the record demonstrating that the court has considered all seven of the factors. The same rules apply to a court considering whether the court should decline jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, O.C.G.A. § 19-9-40 et seq., as an inconvenient forum in accordance with O.C.G.A. § 19-9-67. Murillo v. Murillo, 300 Ga. App. 61, 684 S.E.2d 126 (2009).

Nature and location of evidence.

- It was not improper for the trial court to consider that because a father's fitness as a parent was no longer the controlling custody issue under the revised provisions of O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3(a)(5), this affected the nature and location of the relevant evidence under O.C.G.A. § 19-9-67(b)(6). Murillo v. Murillo, 300 Ga. App. 61, 684 S.E.2d 126 (2009).

No abuse of discretion in declining jurisdiction.

- Trial court did not abuse the court's discretion by declining to exercise jurisdiction in a child custody case under O.C.G.A. § 19-9-67(b) because the children lived in Texas, the witnesses, such as the children's teachers and health care providers were in Texas, and the trial court determined that the case could be more expeditiously resolved there. Odion v. Odion, 325 Ga. App. 733, 754 S.E.2d 778 (2014).

Trial court properly examined the factors set forth in O.C.G.A. § 19-9-67(b) and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the child custody portion of a divorce case because, in part, the children had been living with their mother in California for more than six months and attended school there, and a California court had already conducted two hearings and issued a child custody order, whereas the Georgia court was just beginning to become familiar with the case. Spies v. Carpenter, 296 Ga. 131, 765 S.E.2d 340 (2014).

Cited in Daniels v. Barnes, 289 Ga. App. 897, 658 S.E.2d 472 (2008); Gorelik v. Gorelik, Ga. App. , 815 S.E.2d 330 (2018).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 20 Am. Jur. 2d, Courts, §§ 59, 109 et seq.

C.J.S.

- 21 C.J.S., Courts, §§ 82 et seq., 103.

U.L.A.

- Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (U.L.A.) § 7.

ALR.

- Inconvenience of forum as ground for declining jurisdiction under § 7 of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), 21 A.L.R.5th 396.