GA Code § 19-9-62 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 19 - Domestic Relations|Chapter 9 - Child Custody Proceedings|Article 3 - Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act|Part 2 - Jurisdiction|§ 19-9-62. Prerequisites for Termination of Exclusive, Continuing Jurisdiction

  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:   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   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.     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.     (Code 1981, §19-9-62, enacted by Ga. L. 2001, p. 129, § 1.)   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. § 19-9-62(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).   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).   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).   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).   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 and19-9-62(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).    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).   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).   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).    Cited in Bailey v. Bailey, 283 Ga. App. 361, 641 S.E.2d 580 (2007); Taylor v. Curl, 298 Ga. App. 45, 679 S.E.2d 80 (2009); Oglesby v. Deal, 311 Ga. App. 622, 716 S.E.2d 749 (2011).   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 Enforcement Act's exclusive, continuing jurisdiction provision - no significant connection/substantial evidence, 59 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.