Domestic Relations

Divorce law in Georgia is governed by a combination of statutory provisions and case law interpretations. The statutes outline the grounds for divorce, procedural requirements, and the handling of related matters such as property division, alimony, and child support. Case law provides judicial interpretations and applications of these statutes, addressing specific issues and disputes that arise in divorce proceedings.

• In Bennett v. McClam, 358 Ga. App. 550 (2021), an action for modification of child custody, the trial court did not err in denying the father's motion for attorney fees under O.C.G.A. § 9-15-14(a), because, absent the transcript of the final hearing on the mother's claim, the appellate court assumed that the trial court's finding that it could have accepted the mother's position was correct. The trial court erred in concluding that O.C.G.A. § 19-6-2(a) required her to consider the financial circumstances of the parties when deciding whether to grant the father's claim for fees under O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3(g), as nothing in the statutes required consideration of the parties' financial circumstances when deciding whether to award the father attorney fees under § 19-9-3(g).
• In Dove v. Dove, 285 Ga. 647 (2009), the court found that prenuptial agreements addressing alimony issues are not governed by O.C.G.A. § 19-3-63, which applies to agreements made in contemplation of marriage. The court held that such agreements are enforceable as a matter of public policy, provided they do not violate other legal principles.
• In Johnson v. Gunder, 210 Ga. 419 (1954), the court ruled that a divorce decree becomes final 30 days after its issuance unless a motion to set it aside is filed and served on the opposing party. The court held that the decedent's second wife was his lawful widow because the first wife's motion to set aside the divorce decree was not served on the decedent.
• O.C.G.A. § 19-5-5 outlines the procedural requirements for filing a divorce petition, including verification by the petitioner and the inclusion of specific information such as the grounds for divorce, details about minor children, and property and earnings of the parties.
• O.C.G.A. § 19-5-3 lists the statutory grounds for granting a total divorce, including adultery, desertion, cruel treatment, and other specified circumstances such as mental incapacity or fraud at the time of marriage.
• O.C.G.A. § 19-5-1 provides that total divorces may be granted by the superior court and allows for alternative dispute resolution methods in contested divorce cases, where available.
• O.C.G.A. § 19-5-17 states that when a divorce is granted, the rights of the parties are determined by the jury or judge, and no person is placed under a disability preventing remarriage.
• O.C.G.A. § 19-5-8 establishes that the rules of pleading and practice for ordinary civil actions apply to divorce, alimony, and child custody cases, with specific provisions requiring the court's satisfaction of the allegations before granting relief.
• Ga. Const. Art. VI, § II, Para. I specifies the venue for divorce cases, generally requiring them to be tried in the county where the defendant resides, with exceptions for certain circumstances such as military residency or recent relocation of the defendant.

Georgia law regarding child custody is governed by a combination of statutory provisions and case law, which collectively emphasize the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration. The statutory framework provides detailed guidance on custody determinations, including the roles of parents and third parties, jurisdictional requirements, and procedural safeguards. Case law further interprets these statutes, addressing specific factual scenarios and legal principles, such as the rebuttable presumption favoring parental custody, the standards for modifying custody, and the procedural requirements for appeals.

• In Onyemobi v. Onyemobi, 375 Ga. App. 538 (2025), the Georgia Court of Appeals held that when a child custody determination is made within a divorce case, the discretionary appeal process under O.C.G.A. § 5-6-35 applies, rather than a direct appeal under O.C.G.A. § 5-6-34. The court reasoned that child custody issues in divorce cases are ancillary to the primary issue of dissolving the marriage, requiring adherence to discretionary appeal procedures.
• In Williams v. Phillips, 368 Ga. App. 371 (2023), the court reversed a trial court's award of custody to a grandmother, emphasizing that under Georgia law, parents have a fundamental right to the care and custody of their children. The court reiterated the rebuttable presumption favoring parental custody and held that the grandmother failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that custody with the father would cause physical or significant long-term emotional harm to the child.
• In Hayle v. Ingram, 363 Ga. App. 657 (2022), the court upheld an award of custody to a maternal grandmother, finding sufficient evidence of the father's pattern of domestic violence, including incidents in the presence of the child. The court applied O.C.G.A. § 19-7-1, which establishes a rebuttable presumption favoring parental custody but allows third-party relatives to overcome this presumption with clear and convincing evidence of harm to the child.
• In McManus v. Johnson, 356 Ga. App. 880 (2020), the court addressed temporary custody modifications under O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3, emphasizing that such orders are interim measures intended to serve the child's best interests pending final adjudication. The court noted that temporary custody orders are not governed by the same rules as permanent custody orders and are subject to the trial court's broad discretion.
• In Reder v. Dodds, 354 Ga. App. 598 (2020), the court affirmed an award of custody to a paternal grandmother, finding that the trial court properly applied O.C.G.A. § 19-7-1(b.1) and considered factors such as the child's psychological bonds and the grandmother's ability to meet the child's needs. The court concluded that the grandmother had demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that custody with the father would cause significant long-term emotional harm to the child.
• In Viskup v. Viskup, 291 Ga. 103 (2012), the Georgia Supreme Court upheld a trial court's modification of custody based on a material change in circumstances affecting the child's welfare. The court emphasized that custody modifications must be based on the child's best interests and that evidence of both positive and adverse changes in circumstances can support such modifications. The court also upheld an award of attorney fees under O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3(g), which does not require consideration of the parties' financial circumstances.
• O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3 establishes that custody determinations must prioritize the best interests of the child, with no presumption favoring either parent or any particular form of custody. The statute grants judges broad discretion to consider all circumstances, including the child's desires and the health of the parties, in making custody decisions.
• O.C.G.A. § 19-9-5 allows parents to present custody agreements to the court, which must be ratified unless the court finds that the agreement is not in the child's best interests. The statute also permits judges to supplement agreements on issues not addressed by the parents.
• O.C.G.A. § 19-9-41 defines key terms related to child custody, including "child custody determination" and "child custody proceeding", and clarifies that such proceedings include divorce and other family law matters but exclude juvenile delinquency and contractual emancipation.
• O.C.G.A. § 19-9-22 defines "legal custody" as the responsibility for a child's care and control, including decision-making authority, and "physical custody" as the custody schedule established for the child.
• O.C.G.A. § 19-9-65 requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before a child custody determination is made. It also specifies that the enforceability of custody determinations made without notice or a hearing is not governed by this statute.
• O.C.G.A. § 19-9-61 outlines the jurisdictional requirements for Georgia courts to make child custody determinations, emphasizing the importance of the child's home state and significant connections with Georgia. The statute also clarifies that physical presence or personal jurisdiction is not necessary to establish jurisdiction.

Child custody cases in Georgia often arise in various legal contexts, including divorce, legitimation, paternity, and adoption. Regardless of the specific context, the central focus remains the best interests of the child. For unmarried parents, custody issues may be addressed through legitimation or paternity actions, while third parties may also seek custody under certain circumstances. Additionally, custody matters can be revisited post-judgment in actions for modification of legal or physical custody, as well as parenting time adjustments.

In juvenile and adoption cases, custody determinations may involve unique considerations distinct from those in divorce or paternity cases. These cases often require careful evaluation of the child's welfare and the suitability of the parties seeking custody. The procedural and substantive standards in these cases are tailored to ensure that the child's needs are prioritized above all else.

Georgia law provides a comprehensive framework for child support and child support enforcement actions, addressing various aspects such as jurisdiction, enforcement mechanisms, statutory guidelines, and the role of state agencies. The Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA) and the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) play significant roles in interstate child support cases, while state statutes outline the responsibilities and procedures for child support enforcement agencies.

• In Dep't of Human Res. v. Pruitt, 223 Ga. App. 126 (1996), the Georgia Court of Appeals held that a trial court in Georgia could independently determine child support obligations under URESA, even when a foreign state lacked personal jurisdiction over the obligor. The court emphasized that URESA allows for independent orders in the responding state to enforce child support obligations.
• In Brookins v. Brookins, 190 Ga. App. 852 (1989), the Georgia Court of Appeals ruled that URESA actions for child support arrearages are not subject to the statute of limitations under O.C.G.A. § 9-3-20. The court highlighted that URESA's purpose is to improve enforcement of child support obligations and prevent obligors from evading their duties.
• In Hardman v. Hardman, 295 Ga. 732 (2014), the Georgia Supreme Court clarified that res judicata does not bar a claim for interpretation and enforcement of child support provisions in a settlement agreement. The court also addressed the statutory presumption regarding child support obligations and deviations under O.C.G.A. § 19-6-15.
• In Ross v. Ross, 302 Ga. 39 (2017), the Georgia Supreme Court determined that Connecticut retained continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over a child support order because the husband remained a resident of Connecticut, and neither party consented to Georgia assuming jurisdiction. The court discussed the evolution of child support enforcement laws, including the transition from URESA to UIFSA and the federal Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act (FFCCSOA).
• In Baars v. Freeman, 288 Ga. 835 (2011), the Georgia Supreme Court held that the trial court had continuing, exclusive jurisdiction under UIFSA to enforce child support provisions of a divorce decree. The court emphasized that jurisdiction persists as long as the obligor, obligee, or child resides in Georgia, absent written consent to transfer jurisdiction.
• In Ga. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Wright, 293 Ga. 330 (2013), the Georgia Supreme Court reversed a trial court's ruling, holding that DHS could pursue child support recovery under O.C.G.A. § 19-11-6(a) without a prior designation of a custodial parent. The court affirmed DHS's authority to act under an assignment of rights when public assistance is accepted on behalf of a child.
• O.C.G.A. § 19-11-18 provides that the child support enforcement agency may issue waivers or releases of liens imposed for unpaid child support and outlines procedures for seizing or levying property to satisfy such liens.
• O.C.G.A. § 19-11-33 specifies the notice requirements for obligors regarding enforcement actions, including the inclusion of notice in court orders or by mail to the obligor's last known address.
• O.C.G.A. § 19-11-6 establishes that by accepting public assistance, recipients assign their rights to child support to the state, allowing the department to recover payments and initiate support actions. It also permits applications for child support services from non-public assistance recipients.
• O.C.G.A. § 19-11-37 outlines procedures for addressing mistakes of fact in administrative levies for child support, including notification requirements and the process for requesting hearings before the superior court.
• O.C.G.A. § 19-11-12 mandates periodic reviews of child support orders by the enforcement agency and provides for adjustments based on significant inconsistencies with statutory guidelines under O.C.G.A. § 19-6-15.
• O.C.G.A. § 19-11-7 authorizes the department to recover sums due to dependent children receiving public assistance and to appear in judicial proceedings to enforce support rights. The statute limits such actions to support issues, excluding matters like visitation or custody.

Georgia Civil Practice Act

The Georgia Civil Practice Act (CPA), codified in Chapter 11 of Title 9 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (O.C.G.A.), governs the procedure in all courts of record in Georgia for civil actions, whether at law or in equity, unless specific exceptions are provided by statute. The CPA was enacted in 1966 and became effective on September 1, 1967, with the goal of simplifying court procedures and ensuring that cases are decided on their merits rather than procedural technicalities. It is designed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.

• In Doyal Development Co. v. Blair, 234 Ga. 261 (1975), the court emphasized the CPA's purpose of simplifying court procedures and ensuring cases are decided on their merits.
• In Times-Journal, Inc. v. Jonquil Broadcasting Co., 226 Ga. 673 (1970), the court discussed the broad applicability of the CPA to civil actions in Georgia courts of record.
• In National Biscuit Co. v. Martin, 225 Ga. 198 (1969), the court clarified that administrative bodies like the State Board of Workers' Compensation are not considered courts of record, and the CPA applies only to the extent explicitly incorporated by statute.

The CPA applies broadly to all civil actions, including discovery, depositions, and service of process. For instance, it governs discovery procedures in various contexts, such as administrative proceedings and workers' compensation cases, unless specific statutory provisions conflict with the CPA.

• O.C.G.A. § 15-5B-15 incorporates CPA discovery provisions in certain administrative contexts.
• O.C.G.A. § 50-13A-13 addresses discovery procedures in administrative proceedings.
• O.C.G.A. § 34-9-102 governs discovery in workers' compensation cases.
• In Zheng v. New Grand Buffet, Inc., 321 Ga. App. 308 (2013), the court addressed discovery procedures in workers' compensation contexts under the CPA framework.

The Act provides for notice pleading, requiring only that a complaint give the defendant fair notice of the claim and the type of litigation involved, with the discovery process filling in the details. Additionally, the CPA allows for amendments to pleadings, the addition or substitution of parties, and other procedural adjustments upon court approval.

• In Zephaniah v. Ga. Clinic, P.C., 350 Ga. App. 408 (2019), the court explained the notice pleading standard, emphasizing that complaints need only provide fair notice of the claim and type of litigation.
• In MAB Monroe, LLC v. Mayfield Self Storage, LLC, 374 Ga. App. 98 (2025), the court addressed amendments to pleadings and procedural adjustments under the CPA.

However, the CPA does not apply to special statutory proceedings where specific rules of practice and procedure conflict with its provisions. For example, probate proceedings and certain appeals from courts of ordinary are governed by their own statutory rules, which take precedence over the CPA when conflicts arise.

• In In re Estate of Jones, 346 Ga. App. 877 (2018), the court held that probate proceedings have their own statutory rules that take precedence over the CPA.
• In Bragg v. Bragg, 225 Ga. 494 (1969), the court clarified that certain appeals from courts of ordinary follow specific statutory procedures rather than the CPA.

Key procedural requirements under the CPA include the commencement of a civil action by filing a complaint, the issuance of a summons, and the service of process. Defendants are generally required to file an answer within 30 days of service, unless otherwise provided by statute.

• In Vlass v. Sec. Pac. Nat'l Bank, 263 Ga. 296 (1993), the court discussed service of process requirements under the CPA.
• In Gresham v. Symmers, 227 Ga. 616 (1971), the court addressed the 30-day answer requirement and exceptions to this rule.

The CPA also includes provisions for summary judgment, discovery, and sanctions for abuses of litigation procedures, such as frivolous claims or discovery violations.

• O.C.G.A. § 9-15-14 provides for sanctions for frivolous claims and litigation abuses.
• Ga. Unif. Super. Ct. 6.5 outlines uniform superior court rules related to discovery and procedural matters.
• O.C.G.A. § 9-11-1 establishes the scope and purpose of the Georgia Civil Practice Act.

In summary, the Georgia Civil Practice Act provides a comprehensive framework for civil litigation in Georgia courts, emphasizing uniformity, efficiency, and fairness, while accommodating exceptions for specific statutory proceedings.

Civil Procedure for Domestic Relations

Georgia civil procedure for divorce, child custody, and child support cases is governed by specific statutes and regulations that outline the processes, requirements, and considerations for these matters. These laws address issues such as temporary and permanent child support, custody determinations, and procedural requirements for judgments and modifications. The focus is on ensuring the best interests of the child and compliance with procedural standards.

• O.C.G.A. § 19-6-17 provides a procedure for obtaining child support from a non-custodial parent when custody has been lawfully awarded to another individual or parent. The petition must be served on the respondent, and the court will hear the case unless a jury trial is requested. The judgment is subject to modification in the event of changed circumstances.
• O.C.G.A. § 19-6-14 allows a judge to grant temporary child support and determine temporary custody pending a final divorce judgment. The party required to pay child support is not liable to third parties for necessaries furnished to the children.
• O.C.G.A. § 19-5-12 specifies that a final divorce judgment must conform to the pleadings and evidence. In cases involving child support, the judgment must include a child support worksheet, calculations, and a specified sum certain amount of child support. It also allows for the inclusion of income withholding orders.
• O.C.G.A. § 19-6-15 outlines the requirements for determining child support in divorce cases involving minor children. The court must specify the amount, duration, and manner of payment, include findings on each parent's gross income, and address health insurance availability. Deviations from the presumptive child support amount must be supported by written findings.
• O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3 provides guidance for determining the best interests of the child in custody cases. Factors include the emotional ties between the child and each parent, the capacity of each parent to provide for the child's needs, the stability of the home environment, and the mental and physical health of the parents. The judge must prioritize the child's welfare and happiness.
• Ga. Unif. Super. Ct. 24.2 establishes procedural requirements for financial affidavits and child support worksheets in cases involving child support. Parties must serve financial affidavits and worksheets at least five days before hearings, except in emergencies or as otherwise ordered by the court.