Griggs v. Griggs, 29633
| Decision Date | 18 February 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 29633,29633 |
| Citation | 213 S.E.2d 649,233 Ga. 752 |
| Parties | James D. GRIGGS v. Shirley June GRIGGS. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Richard R. Kirby, Atlanta, for appellant.
Rich, Bass, Kidd & Witcher, R. Hopkins Kidd, Decatur, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The appellant father brought a petition in the Juvenile Court of Cobb County against the appellee mother, alleging that: the four minor children of the parties are 'deprived' as defined by Ga.L.1971, pp. 709, 713 (Code Ann. § 24A-401(h)(1)); the children are currently living with him; the home of the mother is an unfit place for the children for unmerous alleged reasons; the father has remarried and can provide a proper home for the children; and conditions have so materially changed since the award of the children to the mother that to allow them to be returned to her will cause them irreparable harm. It was prayed that custody of the children he removed from the mother and given to the father, and that child support payments to the mother be terminated.
The mother, a resident of Tennessee, made a special appearance to contest the jurisdiction of the court. The juvenile court judge found that he did not have jurisdiction in the matter and dismissed the petition. The appeal is from this judgment.
The appellant's petition in the juvenile court was in the nature of habeas corpus, and such an action must originate in the superior court or court of ordinary. Code § 50-103. A juvenile court does not have original jurisdiction in a custody and support contest between parents, in the nature of habeas corpus, and can consider such a case only when transferred to it by proper order of the superior court. In re J.R.T., 233 Ga. 204, 210 S.E.2d 684.
The allegation in the petition that the children are 'deprived' as defined by the Juvenile Court Act cannot change the essential nature of the action from a custody contest between parents.
The juvenile court judge did not err in holding that he had no jurisdiction of the case and dismissing the petition.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
B.C.P., In Interest of
...a parent is simply attempting to obtain custody of a child rather than protect the child from alleged deprivation. Griggs v. Griggs, 233 Ga. 752, 213 S.E.2d 649 (1975). In Griggs, the children were already living with their father when he filed a petition in juvenile court alleging that ret......
-
Griggs v. Griggs
...jurisdiction of the Fulton Superior Court. (For the decision of the suit filed in the Juvenile Court of Cobb County, see Griggs v. Griggs, 233 Ga. 752, 213 S.E.2d 649.) The contempt hearing was held on November 14, 1974. No transcript of the proceedings was requested by either party and con......
-
Reid v. Adams
...of the Juvenile Court Act cannot change the essential nature of the action from what it is a child custody contest (Griggs v. Griggs, 233 Ga. 752, 213 S.E.2d 649 (1975)), but without the paternal The juvenile court petition was based upon the allegation that the parents were unable to care ......
-
Neal v. Washington
...Ga.App. 542, 544(1), 206 S.E.2d 543; Elrod v. Hall County Dept. of Family etc. Svcs., 136 Ga.App. 251, 220 S.E.2d 726; Griggs v. Griggs, 233 Ga. 752, 213 S.E.2d 649. Judgment QUILLIAN, C. J., and POPE, J., concur. ...