Skip to content
MyCustodyCoach
LoginGet Started

Georgia: Superior Court, Three Lanes

Georgia custody is a county Superior Court story. Parents get in trouble when they download the first PDF that says custody and skip the lane: starting a case, changing an order after real life moved, or proving someone will not follow the line already on paper. This hub names the lane first, then sends you to forms or documentation that matches.

Georgia procedure overviews

Statewide orientation: choose the lane that fits your case (custody modification, parenting time, child support, or enforcement) before you open a checklist page. Checklists live on the Georgia forms hub.

No order yet·Initial / responsive
Facts changed·Modify posture
Order ignored·Compliance proof
Live painFirst MCC moveForms cluster
Starting custody or visitation in Superior CourtInitial custody petition (MCC) · Declaration template · Evidence checklistForms hub (petition + plan rules)
Material change; you need new order languageGeorgia custody modification (overview) · Georgia parenting time modification (overview) · Dated timelineModify custody petition
Clear schedule; other parent will not followGeorgia parenting time enforcement and contempt (overview) · Denied-time logDocument first; forms follow local rules or counsel

Paper that holds up in Superior Court

Georgia judges see vague narratives daily. Build the boring spine: dates, channels, and what the order or school line actually says.

General support (not Georgia-specific)

Forms entry

Petition, parenting-plan requirements, and modify petition live in one hub so you pick the family before the PDF.

Open Georgia forms hub

Long packet build or multi-week roadmap: Custody case roadmap (Resources).

Common questions

Why do Georgia custody searches keep saying Superior Court and county together?

The case file is in a county Superior Court. Statewide self-help or MCC orientation gets you pointed the right direction; the clerk and local rules tell you which packet, cover sheet, or add-on is live this month.

I have an order but Tuesdays keep moving. Is that a new custody case?

Often no. If the schedule is written and the fight is compliance, build a dated log and enforcement-shaped proof before you treat it like a full plan rewrite. If the written schedule is what is broken, modification lanes open.

Where do I start if I do not know which form family I need?

Open the Georgia forms hub to separate petition vs parenting-plan discipline vs modify petition, then pair with the denied-time log if missed exchanges are the live issue.

Relevant Georgia law

The statutes and appellate decisions below are the ones Georgia courts actually apply here. Educational orientation only — not legal advice. Read the source before you rely on it.

Statutes

  • O.C.G.A. § 15-1-4 — Contempt Powers of Courts

    Georgia courts may issue attachments and inflict summary punishment for contempt for “disobedience or resistance by any officer of the courts, party, juror, witness, or other person or persons to any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of the courts.” This general contempt power is how a Georgia custody or visitation order is enforced; O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3 provides no enforcement remedy of its own.

  • O.C.G.A. § 19-6-15 — Child Support Guidelines for Determining Amount of Award

    Georgia uses an income-shares model: the basic support obligation is read from a statutory table keyed to the parents' combined adjusted gross income and the number of children, then adjusted by a mandatory parenting-time adjustment, a low-income adjustment, and any deviations. Current through the 2025 session, effective January 1, 2026.

  • O.C.G.A. § 19-6-15(c), (i), (j), (k) - Rebuttable Presumption; Deviations; Involuntary Loss of Income; Modification of Child Support

    The guideline amount is a rebuttable presumption in every proceeding, and a court or jury may deviate from it only with written findings stating the reasons, the amount the guidelines would have required, how the presumptive amount would be unjust or inappropriate, and how the deviation serves the child's best interest; no deviation may seriously impair the custodial parent's ability to maintain minimally adequate housing, food and clothing for the child. A parent may petition to modify only on a substantial change in either parent's income and financial status or the child's needs, and may not file again within two years of the final order on that parent's previous modification petition unless the noncustodial parent failed to exercise, or exercised more than, the ordered parenting time, or the petition rests on an involuntary loss of income. For an involuntary loss of income of 25 percent or more (job loss, health, incarceration and similar), the support attributable to the lost income stops accruing from service of the modification petition, but leaving a job without good cause does not count as involuntary, and the court may phase in a new award over up to one year. A custodial parent who wins an upward modification based on the noncustodial parent's failure to be available and willing to exercise court-ordered parenting time shall be awarded reasonable attorney's fees and litigation expenses. The text is the Georgia Child Support Commission's copy current through the 2025 session; HB 1268 (2026) made editorial amendments to § 19-6-15 effective July 1, 2026.

  • O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3 — Establishment and Review of Child Custody and Visitation

    Neither parent has a prima-facie right to custody and no form of custody is presumed; the judge alone awards custody on the child's best interests, weighing 17 enumerated factors. A child 14 or older may select the custodial parent (presumptive unless contrary to best interests, and itself a possible material change once per two years); for ages 11-13 the child's wishes are considered but not controlling. Visitation or parenting time may be reviewed and modified without a material-change showing, no more than once every two years.

  • O.C.G.A. §§ 19-13-3(b)-(d), 19-13-4(a)(4) - Ex Parte Family Violence Order; Temporary Custody; Hearing Within 30 Days

    On a verified petition alleging specific facts showing probable cause that family violence has occurred in the past and may occur in the future, the court may order ex parte the temporary relief it deems necessary to protect the petitioner or a minor of the household from violence, and that order stays in effect until the court dismisses it or the hearing occurs, whichever comes first. Among the relief a family violence protective order may grant is temporary custody of minor children and temporary visitation. A hearing must be held within ten days of filing or as soon as practical, but no later than 30 days after filing, at which the petitioner must prove the allegations by a preponderance of the evidence; if no hearing is held within 30 days the petition stands dismissed unless the parties agree otherwise, though the court may delay dismissal 30 more days if it finds a party is avoiding service to delay the hearing.

Key cases

  • Avren v. Garten, 289 Ga. 186 (Ga. 2011)

    Under O.C.G.A. § 19-9-24(b), a custodial parent who is withholding visitation in violation of the custody order may not bring an action to modify custody or visitation or an application for contempt while the visitation is withheld, and the trial court may dismiss those claims without hearing their merits. The Supreme Court of Georgia upheld dismissal of the mother's contempt, custody and visitation claims where the father showed more than 100 scheduled visitation dates that did not take place and she did not make the child go, noting that a child under 14's wish not to visit is not enough to deny the noncustodial parent's visitation. The bar does not reach child-support modification, because support is the child's right; the court also upheld holding the mother in contempt of the custody order and an attorney-fee award against her. The mother's support-modification claim was nonetheless dismissed under O.C.G.A. § 19-6-15(k)(2) because she filed it within two years of the final order on her previous modification petition.

  • Bodne v. Bodne, 277 Ga. 445 (Ga. 2003)

    In relocation cases the court decides custody case-by-case under the best-interests standard with no bright-line rule; the prior rule giving a relocating custodial parent a prima facie right to retain custody is overruled.

  • Hardin v. Hardin, 274 Ga. App. 543 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005)

    A trial court may modify custody when a parent relocates if there is a new and material change in conditions substantially affecting the child, and, under Bodne, it must decide by the child's best interests without a bright-line test. The Court of Appeals affirmed transferring school-year custody to the father after the mother moved to Nashville for a better job, because the trial court weighed her financial reasons against evidence that the move interfered with the children's consistent contact with their father and extended family in Atlanta and that the children were having school problems in Nashville. A parent's showing that the move improved the family's income did not by itself make the custody change an abuse of discretion. The trial court had also held the mother in contempt for violating the order's 60-day advance-notice-of-move provision. The court of appeals also held that the mother's later move back to Atlanta did not require restoring her school-year custody, because her return did not cure the children's school problems or undo her past interference with the father's relationship and her violation of the notice order.

  • Scott v. Scott, 276 Ga. 372 (Ga. 2003)

    A self-executing change-of-custody provision that fails to give paramount import to the child's best interests at the time of the triggering event, such as a parent's relocation, violates Georgia's public policy expressed in O.C.G.A. 19-9-3 and must be stricken, even though such provisions are not expressly prohibited by statute. The court distinguished, and left standing, flexible provisions like those approved in Weaver and Pearce that accommodate a 14-year-old child's statutory right to select the parent with whom to live. A finding at the time of the decree that a future relocation would harm the child does not save the provision, because whether a change of custody is warranted depends on the facts when the modification is sought. Scott overruled Holder v. Holder and disapproved Carr v. Carr, the earlier decisions that had enforced automatic custody changes triggered by a parent's remarriage or relocation.

MyCustodyCoach is not a law firm. Court rules, fees, and form versions change by county; confirm what applies to your case with official court resources or counsel you hire.