Georgia Department of Human Services v. Wright

745 S.E.2d 628, 293 Ga. 330, 2013 Fulton County D. Rep. 2042, 2013 WL 3287155, 2013 Ga. LEXIS 599
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided July 1, 2013·No. S13A0186·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

HINES, Justice.

This Court granted the application for discretionary review of the Georgia Department of Human Services (“DHS”) to review the trial court’s ruling that, without an action for divorce having been undertaken, DHS may not seek an award against one parent for the support of a child. For the reasons that follow, we reverse.

DHS, on behalf of the minor child of Johnny B. Wright (“Father”), filed a complaint against him, asking the superior court to order Father to pay child support and maintain accident and health insurance, and enforce the order through an income deduction order. During a hearing on the complaint, the trial court learned that Father was currently married to Monica N. Wright, the mother of the minor child (“Mother”), and that no divorce or separate maintenance action had been filed. The court concluded that without such an action being filed by one of the parents, neither parent has been designated as the “custodial parent,” and concluded that DHS therefore had no authority to pursue an award of child support, and entered an order denying any child support recovery. However, DHS’s statutory authority to seek child support recovery is not dependent on a prior court order designating a “custodial parent.”

DHS is proceeding under an assignment of rights to child support. OCGA § 19-11-6.1 And, for Mother to file a petition for an award [331] of child support from Father under OCGA § 19-6-10,2 there is no need for a court to first designate her as the “custodial parent”; the statute contains no such requirement. See Goodman v. Goodman, 253 Ga. 281 (319 SE2d 455) (1984) (wife secured separate maintenance award three years before filing for divorce). As Mother has accepted public assistance on behalf of the child, she has “made an assignment to [DHS] of the right to any child support owed for the child.” OCGA § 19-11-6 (a) (Emphasis supplied). Further, under OCGA § 19-11-6 (a), DHS is “subrogated to the right of the child or children or the person [332] having custody to initiate any support action existing under the laws of this state and to recover any payments ordered by the courts of this or any other state.” Id. (Emphasis supplied.) See Department of Human Resources v. Woodruff, 234 Ga. App. 513 (507 SE2d 249) (1998). The assignment under OCGA § 19-11-6 (a) thus necessarily includes an assignment of Mother’s right to initiate an action under OCGA § 19-6-10.

Decided July 1, 2013. Samuel S. Olens, Attorney General, Dennis R. Dunn, Deputy Attorney General, Shalen S. Nelson, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Mark J. Cicero, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant. Johnny B. Wright, pro se.

There is no dispute that Mother and Father are living separately and that there is no pending action for divorce, conditions set forth in OCGA § 19-6-10. Accordingly, the trial court erred in ruling that DHS could not bring an action under OCGA § 19-11-6 (a) on behalf of the child to secure a support award pursuant to the provisions of OCGA § 19-6-10.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

Footnotes

(a) By accepting public assistance for or on behalf of a child or children, including foster care maintenance payments made pursuant to Title IV-E of the federal Social Security Act, the recipient shall be deemed to have made an assignment to the department of the right to any child support owed for the child. The department shall be subrogated to the right of the child or children or the person having custody to initiate any support action existing under the laws of this state and to recover any payments ordered by the courts of this or any other state. Amounts collected by the department shall be distributed and deposited by the department in conformity with law.
(b) Whenever a family for whom child support services have been provided ceases to receive public assistance, including medical assistance, the department shall continue to provide services and collect such support payments from the absent parent in accordance with standards prescribed pursuant to the federal Social Security Act.
(c) The department shall accept applications for child support services from any proper party or person notwithstanding the fact that the child or children do not receive public assistance. When made, this application to the department shall constitute an assignment of the right to support to the department and the proceeds of any collections resulting from such application shall be distributed in accordance with the standards prescribed in the federal Social Security Act.
[331] (d) The department shall accept applications for alimony enforcement services from any proper party or person if the right to alimony has been assigned to the department. The application for enforcement shall apply only to alimony while there is a court order for alimony, while the dependent child is living with the spouse or former spouse, and while a child support obligation is also being enforced by the department.
(e) The department shall accept applications for IV-D services from noncustodial parent obligors. The department, by virtue of the acceptance of such applications for IV-D services, is authorized to take any action allowed by this chapter including, but not limited to, the review and modification of support awards, whether such awards are modified upward or downward, pursuant to Code Section 19-11-12. The proceeds of any collections resulting from such applications shall be distributed in accordance with the standards prescribed in the federal Social Security Act.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Georgia Department of Human Services v. Wright, 745 S.E.2d 628, 293 Ga. 330, 2013 Fulton County D. Rep. 2042, 2013 WL 3287155, 2013 Ga. LEXIS 599 (Ga. 2013).

745 S.E.2d 628 (Georgia Department of Human Services v. Wright) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jose Roberto Adame v. Maria Cristina Hernandez
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2014
Adame v. Hernandez
761 S.E.2d 402 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2014)