Georgia

Statutory framework; factor structure: 17.

Authority

Ga. Code Ann. § 19-9-3(a)(3)

Source framework

Statutory

Factor structure

17

Operative language

may

Catch-all language

preamble

Presumptions in the original survey

No presumption favoring either parent or any form of custody under (a)(1); age-14 selection is separately presumptive, subject to best interests, under (a)(5).

Child's voice / age rule

14 (presumptive selection, subject to best interests); 11–13 considered

Compare best interests nationally

(13) "The marriage is irretrievably broken"

Authority

O.C.G.A. § 19-5-3

Grounds without a misconduct showing

(13) "The marriage is irretrievably broken"

Other grounds and proof conditions

Twelve grounds in addition to breakdown: prohibited kinship; mental incapacity at marriage; impotency at marriage; force, menace, duress, or fraud in obtaining the marriage; the wife's pregnancy by another man at marriage, unknown to the husband; adultery after marriage; one-year willful and continued desertion; conviction of an offense involving moral turpitude with a sentence of imprisonment for at least two years; habitual intoxication; cruelty as statutorily defined; incurable mental illness under the statutory findings and treatment conditions; and habitual drug addiction. “Twelve fault grounds” inaccurately treats incapacity and prohibited kinship as misconduct.

Separation

No general separation period identified for the ordinary breakdown route. See the ground and timing conditions.

Timing

No decree on ground (13) until 30 days from service, § 19-5-3(13)

Relief without dissolution

Section 19-6-10 provides a separate-maintenance/equitable-relief proceeding when spouses live separately or in a bona fide state of separation and no divorce action is pending. It is held in abeyance when a bona fide divorce petition is filed and the judge has entered the specified alimony order.

Compare divorce grounds nationally

General best-interest factors. Ordinary modification. 30 days; exceptions apply.

Authority

O.C.G.A. 19-9-3(f)(3) (Bodne)

Court test

general best-interest factors (no relocation-specific list)

Burden classification

burden on the party seeking modification (no relocation-specific allocation)

Notice classification

yes

Trigger classification

any move (no distance threshold)

Effect of silence

not addressed (no objection procedure in statute or rule)

What the court weighs

Georgia applies its ordinary two-step modification test: first a material change in condition affecting the child since the last award, then best interests. Bodne (2003) forbids any presumption that a relocating custodial parent will lose custody and any presumption in favor of relocation, and rejects bright-line tests. Scott v. Scott (2003) restates (quoting Ofchus) that Georgia law does not permit modification based solely on a custodial parent's relocation, and holds that a self-executing change-of-custody clause triggered by a move or remarriage, which ignores the child's best interests at the time, violates public policy. Dellinger (2004) extends Scott to self-executing changes of visitation triggered by a move, allowing them only in narrow conditions. Hether v. Campbell (2025) applies all three. In the June 15, 2026 appeal (A26A0347), the court held that the unappealed May 2024 no-material-change finding remained binding and did not authorize a new trial after remittitur; it reversed the new custody/decision-making rulings, vacated the duplicate domestication ruling, and remanded with direction. Footnote 4 leaves a new petition based on later events available and expresses no opinion whether the actual move or later interference would constitute a material change.

Who carries the burden

On the parent seeking a change of custody: first a material change affecting the child, then that the change serves the child's best interests. No relocation-specific shift. Bodne overruled cases that gave the custodial parent a prima facie right to retain custody unless the objector proved endangerment.

Notice and safety exceptions

Yes, for any change of residence. Unless a court order provides otherwise, a parent who changes residence must notify the other parent (and, if the mover is the custodial parent, anyone with visitation or parenting time) at least 30 days before the anticipated change, including the full new address (§ 19-9-3(f)(3)). The subsection says 'notification' and specifies no delivery method. (f)(2) requires writing only for a pickup-address change.

Which moves trigger the rule

Any change of residence by a parent under a custody judgment triggers the notice provision unless the court order provides otherwise. No mileage threshold and no in-state or out-of-state distinction.

Objections and the effect of silence

None in the statute. The other parent's remedy is to file for modification. No objection deadline and no consent-by-silence rule.

The modification threshold

No per se rule, and a move alone is not enough (Scott, Brazil v. Williams, 359 Ga. App. 487, 859 S.E.2d 490 (2021) ). A trial court that finds no material change cannot shift custody conditionally on the move (Hether). But under § 19-9-3(b), parenting-time provisions can be reviewed and modified without any showing of changed conditions, no more than once every two years.

Other qualifications

Unless the court order provides otherwise, the notice duty attaches to a change of residence, however short, and a two-year no-showing review of parenting time lets a court redo the schedule after a move without proving material change. Deployment moves are handled separately in § 19-9-3(i), including a 30-day address-change notice for the non-deploying parent under a temporary order.

Burden summary

Ordinary modification

Notice summary

30 days; exceptions apply

Trigger summary

Any move

Compare parental relocation nationally