Court Opinion

ID: 9626031
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:59:41.353059+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:19.478334
License: Public Domain

Sears-Collins, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with Division 1 of the majority opinion. However, I disagree with Division 2 to the extent it requires the DHR to allege a need for additional support when bringing a modification action on behalf of a child who is not receiving public assistance. Therefore, I concur with the majority’s affirmance of the trial court, but I dissent to the remand for amendment of the complaint.
The primary purpose of statutory construction is to ascertain the intent of the legislature; however, if the language of the statute is plain and unequivocal, then the intent of the legislature is apparent on the face of the statute, and it is unnecessary, in fact forbidden, to go behind the words of the statute to extraneous sources to ferret out a construction contrary to those words. Telecom*USA v. Collins, 260 Ga. 362 (393 SE2d 235) (1990);8 Burnam v. Wilkerson, 217 Ga. 657, 660 (124 SE2d 389) (1962); Atlanta Casualty v. Flewellen, 164 Ga. App. 885, 887 (300 SE2d 166) (1982). The language of the statutes at issue in this case is plain and unequivocal, yet the majority has chosen to interpret the legislative intent contrary to that language. OCGA § 19-11-2 provides as follows:
(a) The underlying purposes of this article are:
(1) To provide that public assistance to needy children is a supplement to the contribution of the responsible parents;
(2) To provide for a determination that a responsible parent is able to support his children; and
(3) To provide for the enforcement of an able parent’s obligation to furnish support.
(b) This article shall be liberally construed to promote its underlying purposes.
OCGA § 19-11-8 (b) provides that
*526[t]he [DHR] shall accept applications for child support enforcement services from a custodian of a minor child who is not a recipient of public assistance and shall take appropriate action under this article, the child support statutes, or other state and federal statutes to assure that the responsible parent supports the child. [Emphasis supplied.]
The majority has required the DHR to allege that the child is in need of additional support in a modification action brought on behalf of a child who does not receive public assistance. The only reason given by the majority for this requirement is that the legislative history of OCGA § 19-11-8 (b) “indicates an intent to authorize [the] DHR to pursue appropriate action to assure adequate support from the responsible parent of a minor child not receiving public assistance, in order to prevent the child’s family from having to apply for public assistance.” (Majority p. 524.)9 The literal words of the statute, however, prohibit such a construction. Rather, the statute clearly requires the DHR to “take appropriate action under this article, the child support statutes, or other state and federal statutes to assure that the responsible parent supports the child.” OCGA § 19-11-8 (b). The statutory language, then, clearly permits the DHR to pursue a modification action under OCGA § 19-6-19 (a), this state’s statutory provision governing the modification of child support obligations. That Code section provides that a child support award “shall be subject to revision upon petition filed by either former spouse showing a change in the income and financial status of either former spouse or in the needs of the child or children.” See also Wright v. Wright, 246 Ga. 81, 82 (268 SE2d 666) (1980). Thus, the literal language of the statute permits the DHR to bring a modification action on behalf of a minor child not receiving public assistance based solely upon a change in the financial ability of the spouse making payments. Moreover, the plain language of OCGA § 19-11-8 contains no requirement that would restrict the DHR to filing a modification action on behalf of a child only if there has been a change in the child’s needs.
*527Decided November 16, 1992.
Chilivis & Grindler, Nicholas P. Chilivis, J. D. Dalbey, for appellant.
Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, William C. Joy, Senior Assistant Attorney General, William M. Droze, Assistant Attorney General, Robert 0. Davies, for appellee.
Furthermore, the majority’s statement of legislative intent actually contradicts its limiting construction of § 19-11-8. In this regard, allowing the DHR to seek modification of child support obligations based on the increased income of the noncustodial parent would help to ensure “increased child support collections for non-welfare families, [so that] those families would not then be forced to turn to public assistance.” (Majority p. 524, fn. 6.)
Child support enforcement in our country is a national tragedy. In Georgia, non-compliance is rampant and has contributed to an epidemic of poverty for millions of children and injustice for others. OCGA § 19-11-2 and the provisions that follow seek to amend this imperfect system by providing a mechanism whereby custodial parents of dependent children in this state can, with minimal time and expense, obtain assistance with the paperwork involved in child support enforcement, with locating the person obligated to pay support and with making sure that the proper amount of money is collected and disbursed.
Until today, the Child Support Recovery Act was a powerful tool for any child who needed it. Today, for many of our state’s children, it is impotent.

 “[T]he ‘golden rule’ of statutory construction . . . requires us to follow the literal language of the statute ‘unless it produces contradiction, absurdity or such an inconvenience as to insure that the legislature meant something else.’ ” Telecom* USA, 260 Ga. at 363 (Clarke, C. J., writing for the majority) (quoting Dept. of Transp. v. City of Atlanta, 255 Ga. 124, 137 (337 SE2d 327) (1985)).

 The majority also “suggests” that because the legislature has provided for the award of attorney fees and expenses in child support modification actions, it has reserved to the private bar the right to bring child support modification actions on behalf of children whose needs have not changed, but “whose court-ordered provider enjoys an enhanced financial status.” (Majority p. 524, fn. 7) Of course, the private bar is as essential to the enforcement of child support orders as it is in other litigation. However, the plain language of OCGA §19-11-8 imposes no requirement of a change in need before a custodial parent is entitled to the option of requesting that the DHR file a modification action on behalf of his or her child. Moreover, the majority forgets that an award of costs and attorney fees to a custodial parent seeking modification is not assured under any statutory scheme.