GA Code § 19-11-43 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 19 - Domestic Relations|Chapter 11 - Enforcement of Duty of Support|Article 2 - Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act|§ 19-11-43. Duty of Support Defined; Criteria for Determining Existence of Duty of Support

 "Duty of support" includes any duty of support imposed or imposable by law or by any court order, decree, or judgment, whether interlocutory or final, and whether incidental to a proceeding for divorce, judicial (legal) separation, separate maintenance, or otherwise; for purposes of this article, in determining the existence of a duty of support, the following criteria may be considered, without limitation:    A person in one state is declared to be liable for the support of the person's spouse, in conformity with the support laws of this state, and for the support of any child or children of his under 18 years of age and residing or found in the same state or in another state having substantially similar or reciprocal laws; and, if the person is possessed of sufficient means or is able to earn such means, he may be required to pay for this support a fair and reasonable sum according to his means, as may be determined by the court having jurisdiction of the respondent in a proceeding instituted under this article. Notwithstanding the fact that either spouse has obtained in any state or county a final decree of divorce or separation from the other spouse or a decree dissolving their marriage, the obligor under this Code section shall be deemed legally liable for the support under this article of any dependent child of the marriage, whether or not there has been an award of alimony or support for the child or children;   The parents in one state are declared to be severally liable for the support of a child 18 years of age or older, residing or found in the same state or in another state having substantially similar or reciprocal laws, whenever the child is unable to maintain himself and is likely to become a public charge;   A child or children born of parents who, at any time prior or subsequent to the birth of the child, have entered into a civil or religious marriage ceremony shall be deemed the legitimate child or children of both parents, regardless of the validity of the marriage;   A child or children born to parents who held or hold themselves out as husband and wife by virtue of a common-law marriage recognized as valid by the laws of the initiating state and of the responding state shall be deemed the legitimate child or children of both parents;   A common-law marriage recognized as valid by the laws of the initiating state and of the responding state shall be deemed to be a valid marriage for purposes of this article;   Whenever a person has been adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction as the parent of a child born out of wedlock, the person shall be legally liable for the support of the child in the same manner in which the person would owe the duty of support if the child were a legitimate child.    (Ga. L. 1958, p. 34, § 2; Ga. L. 1979, p. 466, § 45; Ga. L. 1988, p. 1720, § 12.)   Law reviews.   - For annual survey of law of domestic relations, see 38 Mercer L. Rev. 179 (1986). For comment on Connell v. Connell, 119 Ga. App. 485, 167 S.E.2d 686 (1969), as to enforcement of a foreign modification of a Georgia child support decree, see 21 Mercer L. Rev. 675 (1970).   JUDICIAL DECISIONS   Ordering putative father to support illegitimate children.    - It is not contrary to public policy for a putative father to be ordered to support his illegitimate children, and provision is specifically made for compelling him to do so. Wilson v. Chumney, 96 Ga. App. 258, 99 S.E.2d 736 (1957).   Determining duty of support does not require formal paternity adjudication.    - While a formal adjudication of paternity "may be considered" in determining the existence of a duty of support, the trial court is expressly not limited to this criterion. Evans v. State, 178 Ga. App. 1, 341 S.E.2d 865 (1986).    Although, under O.C.G.A. § 19-11-43, a formal adjudication of paternity is not required for prosecution of support claims under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA), O.C.G.A. § 19-11-40 et seq., an adjudication may be considered by a court in determining whether support obligations exist. Department of Human Resources v. McCormick, 208 Ga. App. 751, 431 S.E.2d 740 (1993).   Effect of URESA action support award on prior decree.    - Under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, O.C.G.A. § 19-11-40 et seq., the court having jurisdiction in the responding state makes an independent determination of a "fair and reasonable sum" irrespective of whether there is a prior decree; and if a different amount is ordered paid, the other judgment is not modified but sums paid under either are credited to the other. State ex rel. McKenna v. McKenna, 253 Ga. 6, 315 S.E.2d 885 (1984); Baird v. Herrmann, 181 Ga. App. 579, 353 S.E.2d 75 (1987).   Out-of-state resident's URESA remedy in Georgia.    - Initiating proceedings in one state to modify an original decree does not preclude initiating proceedings in Georgia under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, O.C.G.A. § 19-11-40 et seq., and pursuing that remedy to satisfaction. State v. Chase, 195 Ga. App. 806, 395 S.E.2d 284 (1990).    Neither the existence of a foreign child support judgment nor the terms thereof have any bearing whatsoever on an obligee's right to initiate and pursue an Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, O.C.G.A. § 19-11-40 et seq., action to enforce an obligor's duty to provide child support. State v. Chase, 195 Ga. App. 806, 395 S.E.2d 284 (1990).    Petition under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, O.C.G.A. § 19-11-40 et seq., by the Department of Human Resources, on behalf of an Ohio resident, to collect child support and arrearages from a Georgia resident was erroneously dismissed on the grounds that the Ohio court lacked jurisdiction over the Georgia resident when the court entered the original support order; the Georgia court was required to make its own determination, applying Georgia law, as to the Georgia resident's duty of support and the amount to be paid. Department of Human Resources v. Pruitt, 223 Ga. App. 126, 476 S.E.2d 764 (1996).   Arrearages may be collected after child obtains majority.    - Contempt action to collect arrearages which accrued while a child was under 18 may be filed even though the child on whose behalf the action is brought is legally an adult at the time of the action. Johnson v. State, 167 Ga. App. 508, 306 S.E.2d 756 (1983).    Cited in Henry v. Henry, 115 Ga. App. 211, 154 S.E.2d 298 (1967); Crane v. Crane, 225 Ga. 605, 170 S.E.2d 392 (1969); Dill v. Dill, 232 Ga. 231, 206 S.E.2d 6 (1974); Weaver v. Chester, 195 Ga. App. 471, 393 S.E.2d 715 (1990).   OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL   Reciprocal features of article do not extend to foreign countries.    - Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (see now O.C.G.A. § 19-11-40 et seq.) is effective between Georgia and all other states and territories of the United States where a similar act has been enacted but reciprocal features are not extended to foreign countries. 1962 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 348.   Parents severally liable for support until child's eighteenth birthday.   - Parents of a child are severally liable for the child's support until the child attains 18 years of age. 1962 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 346.   Duty to support illegitimate children requires paternity finding.   - Duty of support does not extend to illegitimate child absent adjudication of paternity. 1970 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U70-73.   RESEARCH REFERENCES   Am. Jur. 2d.   - 41 Am. Jur. 2d, Illegitimate Children, §§ 40, 41, 87 et seq. 23 Am. Jur. 2d, Desertion and Nonsupport, § 74. 59 Am. Jur. 2d, Parent and Child, § 46.   C.J.S.   - 14 C.J.S., Children Out-of-Wedlock, § 39 et seq. 41 C.J.S., Husband and Wife, §§ 16, 66 et seq., 214, 215, 219, 220. 67A C.J.S., Parent and Child, §§ 162 et seq., 175, 203.   U.L.A.   - Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (1958 Act) (U.L.A.) § 2.   ALR.    - Extraterritorial effect of provision in decree of divorce for support of child, 90 A.L.R. 939.   Construction and application of state statutes providing for reciprocal enforcement of duty to support dependents, 42 A.L.R.2d 768.   Validity, construction, and application of statute imposing upon stepparent obligation to support child, 75 A.L.R.3d 1129.   Father's liability for support of child furnished after divorce decree which awarded custody to mother but made no provision for support, 91 A.L.R.3d 530.   Parent's obligation to support unmarried minor child who refuses to live with parent, 98 A.L.R.3d 334.