Court Opinion

ID: 9574434
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:04:51.289549+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:33.224017
License: Public Domain

Hill, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent from Division 1 of the majority opinion. I am, however, unable to agree with the dissenting opinion that the trial court was without subject matter jurisdiction of this child custody habeas corpus case.
The superior courts have jurisdiction of child custody habeas corpus cases. Code Ann. §§ 50-103, 24-2616 (1, 4). Thus, in my view, the superior courts have subject matter jurisdiction of child custody habeas cases. 18 EGL 623, Jurisdiction, § 7.
In this case the parties were divorced in Florida and custody of the children was awarded to the mother. Later she permitted the husband to have the children temporarily; he brought them to Georgia and refused to return them. When she came here to retrieve the children, she was served with process in this habeas corpus proceeding.
I would hold that where a nonresident of this state, who has legal custody of a child pursuant to a court order, enters this state to retrieve that child from a person who holds that child contrary to such court order, such nonresident is not subject to service of process in a habeas corpus proceeding involving the child. I would do so under *461the rule that service of process procured by the wrongful act of the plaintiff, as by fraud, artifice, or trick, is invalid. 92 CJS 785, Venue, § 89.
Certainly we would say that where a person is kidnapped by a plaintiff and transported to plaintiffs choice of forum, service of process perfected thereby would be invalid. A parent having legal custody of a child will come to that child. Such action is as involuntary as the person who is kidnapped. It matters not to me whether the parent or the child be kidnapped; I would hold that service of process under such circumstances is invalid.
I therefore dissent.