§ 19-9-66.Procedure when proceedings pending in another state
Chapter 9. Child Custody Proceedings · Article 3. Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act · Part 2. Jurisdiction · Last amended 2001 · Last verified October 9, 2026
Full Text of § 19-9-66
Plain-English Summary
Two parents in two states sometimes file custody cases in a race. This section decides who wins. Except in an emergency under § 19-9-64, a Georgia court may not exercise its jurisdiction if, when the Georgia case was commenced, a custody case had already been commenced in a court of another state having jurisdiction substantially in conformity with the Act. A case is commenced when the first pleading is filed (§ 19-9-41). The Georgia court may go ahead only if the other case has been terminated, or stayed by the other court because Georgia is a more convenient forum under § 19-9-67.
Subsection (b) tells the Georgia judge what to do. Before hearing a custody case, the court shall examine the court documents and other information the parties supply under § 19-9-69 — the sworn statement of the child’s addresses and other proceedings. If the court finds a custody case has been commenced in another state having jurisdiction substantially in accordance with the Act, it shall stay its own case and communicate with the other court. If that court doesn’t determine that Georgia is the more appropriate forum, the Georgia court shall dismiss.
Subsection (c) handles a different collision: a modification case in Georgia while someone is enforcing the order in another state. The Georgia court shall find out whether an enforcement case has been commenced elsewhere. If so, it may stay the modification until the other court enforces, stays, denies or dismisses the enforcement case; enjoin the parties from continuing the enforcement case; or proceed with the modification under conditions it considers appropriate. The choice is the judge’s. Judge-to-judge communication follows § 19-9-49.
Frequently Asked Questions
My ex filed for custody in another state first. Can I still file in Georgia?
You can file, but the Georgia court generally can’t proceed. Under § 19-9-66(a), a Georgia court may not exercise its jurisdiction if a custody case was already commenced in another state having jurisdiction substantially in conformity with the Act, unless that case was terminated or stayed because Georgia is a more convenient forum. An emergency under § 19-9-64 is the exception.
What does the Georgia judge do after learning about a custody case in another state?
Stay and talk. Under § 19-9-66(b), if the court finds a custody case was commenced in another state having jurisdiction substantially in accordance with the Act, it shall stay its own case and communicate with the other court. If that court doesn’t determine Georgia is the more appropriate forum, the Georgia court shall dismiss.
Does it matter who filed for custody first?
Yes, but only if the first state had jurisdiction. The bar in § 19-9-66(a) applies when a case was already commenced in another state “having jurisdiction substantially in conformity with” the Act at the time the Georgia case was commenced. Commencement means filing the first pleading (§ 19-9-41). A filing in a state that lacks jurisdiction under the Act’s standards doesn’t block Georgia.
What if I ask Georgia to modify custody while my ex enforces the order in another state?
The Georgia court must check for that and then choose. Under § 19-9-66(c), it may stay the modification until the other court rules on enforcement, enjoin the parties from continuing the enforcement case, or proceed with the modification under conditions it considers appropriate. Which path it takes is up to the judge.
How does the Georgia court find out about a case in another state?
Mostly from the parties. Section 19-9-66(b) requires the court, before hearing a custody case, to examine the court documents and other information the parties supply under § 19-9-69. That section requires each party to state under oath whether they know of other custody proceedings and to keep the court informed of new ones.
Amendment History
Laws 2001, p. 129, § 1.