If the obligor asserts as a defense that he is not the father of the child for whom support is sought and it appears to the court that the defense is not frivolous and if both of the parties are present at the hearing or if the proof required in the case indicates that the presence of either or both of the parties is not necessary, the court may adjudicate, by a jury trial if demanded by either party, the paternity issue. Otherwise the court may continue the hearing until the paternity issue has been adjudicated.
(Ga. L. 1977, p. 699, § 1.)
Cross references.- Proceedings to determine paternity, § 19-7-40 et seq.
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Term "frivolous" in O.C.G.A. § 19-11-66 refers to a defense in which the party's realistic chances of ultimate success are slight. Glover v. Clark, 161 Ga. App. 552, 288 S.E.2d 887 (1982).
Subject of parentage res judicata at time of URESA proceeding.
- Trial court did not err in refusing to consider issue of parentage of minor child in context of Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, O.C.G.A. § 19-11-40 et seq., proceedings when the final divorce decree had been rendered and, pursuant to an agreement entered into by both parties, had granted the appellant reasonable rights of visitation and had ordered the appellant to pay child support and $250.00 for medical expenses relating to the birth of the child. The legitimacy of the child was a matter for decision during divorce proceedings and was res judicata at the time of the URESA proceeding. East v. Pike, 163 Ga. App. 375, 294 S.E.2d 597 (1982).
Cited in Aikens v. Turner, 241 Ga. 401, 245 S.E.2d 660 (1978); Stinson v. Iowa Dep't of Social Servs., 172 Ga. App. 633, 323 S.E.2d 917 (1984).
RESEARCH REFERENCES
Am. Jur. 2d.
- 41 Am. Jur. 2d, Illegitimate Children, §§ 8, 14 et seq.
ALR.- Determination of paternity of child as within scope of proceeding under Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, 81 A.L.R.3d 1175.
Paternity proceedings: right to jury trial, 51 A.L.R.4th 565.