§ 19-11-72.Jurisdiction in other proceedings not conferred
Chapter 11. Enforcement of Duty of Support · Article 2. Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act · Last amended 1958 · Last verified October 9, 2026
Full Text of § 19-11-72
Plain-English Summary
This section belongs to Article 2, Georgia’s version of the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA). Under § 19-11-40.1, no new petition may be filed and no new proceeding may begin under Article 2 on or after January 1, 1998; the article applies only to proceedings pending before that date. Interstate support cases begun since then fall under Article 3, the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, which starts at § 19-11-100.
This short section protects people who take part in a URESA case. Participation in any proceeding under the article shall not confer on any court jurisdiction of any of the parties in any other proceeding. Someone who appears in a URESA support case — to seek support or to answer a petition — doesn’t, by doing so, submit to a court’s power in some different lawsuit.
The rule encourages participation. Without it, a parent seeking support across state lines might hesitate, worried that showing up would expose him or her to unrelated claims in that court. The protection covers “any of the parties,” so it reaches both the person seeking support and the person ordered to pay.
The section speaks only to jurisdiction that would come from participation. It doesn’t stop a court from having jurisdiction on some other basis. Article 3 carries a similar idea: under § 19-11-133, a petitioner’s participation before a responding tribunal doesn’t confer personal jurisdiction over the petitioner in another proceeding, and § 19-11-103 says the article doesn’t give a Georgia tribunal jurisdiction over custody or visitation in a proceeding under it.
Frequently Asked Questions
If I go to court for interstate child support, can I be sued in that state for something else?
Not because of your participation. In URESA cases, this section says participation in any proceeding under the article doesn’t confer jurisdiction of any of the parties in any other proceeding. Jurisdiction could still exist on some separate basis. In Article 3 cases, § 19-11-133 gives petitioners a similar protection.
Does appearing in a URESA case let the court decide custody?
Not on the strength of that appearance. Participation in a URESA proceeding doesn’t confer jurisdiction of the parties in any other proceeding, and a custody case is a different proceeding. Under Article 3, § 19-11-103 adds that the article doesn’t grant a Georgia tribunal jurisdiction over custody or visitation in a proceeding under it.
Does this protection cover the person who owes support too?
Yes. The section protects “any of the parties,” not only the person seeking support. A respondent who participates in a URESA case doesn’t thereby give any court jurisdiction over him or her in another proceeding. A respondent who answers a petition in Georgia, for example, doesn’t submit to Georgia jurisdiction in some other lawsuit by doing so.
Is there a similar protection in the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act?
Yes, for petitioners. Section 19-11-133 says a petitioner’s participation before a responding tribunal doesn’t confer personal jurisdiction over the petitioner in another proceeding, and a petitioner physically present in Georgia to take part isn’t amenable to service of civil process — with an exception for litigation based on unrelated acts committed while here.
Does this section apply to cases filed today?
No. Article 2 applies only to proceedings pending before January 1, 1998, as § 19-11-40.1 provides. Newer interstate support cases fall under Article 3, where § 19-11-133 and § 19-11-103 address related questions. Section 19-11-40.1 says the provisions of Article 2 apply only to those pending proceedings.
Amendment History
Laws 1958, p. 34, § 27.