Elizabeth Noell Challenges Equitable Caregiver Statute, Transferred

Jump To

Top Caption Disposition Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 27, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Elizabeth Noell v. Sharon Jackson

Court of Appeals of Georgia

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: A26I0179

• Disposition: Interlocutory App Transferred To S C

• Opinion

• Authorities (5)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (1.2K)

• PDF

Disposition

Interlocutory App Transferred To S C

Combined Opinion

Court of Appeals
of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________
April 27, 2026

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A26I0179. ELIZABETH NOELL v. SHARON JACKSON.

This application presents an as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of the
Equitable Caregiver Statute, OCGA § 19-7-3.1. Because it may fall within the
exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Georgia, we transfer it there.
The application materials show that Elizabeth Noell and Shanna Jackson were
unmarried romantic partners who had two children, now ages 13 and 16. Noell and
Shanna ended their relationship in 2017 and thereafter shared joint legal and physical
custody of the children. In 2019, Shanna married Sharon Jackson, and in 2025, Shanna
died. Sharon then filed a petition against Noell under the Equitable Caregiver Statute,
alleging that she had developed a bond with the children during her marriage to
Shanna and that Shanna had fostered and supported that relationship and behaved as
though Sharon was a parent of the children. Noell moved to dismiss the petition,
arguing that Sharon had failed to state a claim under OCGA § 19-7-3.1 because she had
not alleged that Noell undertook any action to encourage a parental bond between
Sharon and the children.
Under the Equitable Caregiver Statute, a party seeking equitable caregiver
status must show, among other things, that she “[e]stablished a bonded and
dependent relationship with the child, which relationship was fostered or supported
by a parent of the child, and such individual and the parent have understood,
acknowledged, or accepted that or behaved as though such individual is the parent of
the child.” OCGA § 19-7-3.1(d)(3) (emphasis supplied). Noell argued that this
language must be interpreted to require Sharon to show that Noell — not just Shanna
— encouraged a parental relationship between Sharon and the children; otherwise,
Noell’s constitutional right to parent her children would be infringed. The trial court
disagreed, ruling that the plain language of the statute required Sharon only to show
that “a parent” had encouraged the relationship; that the petition adequately alleged
that Shanna had done so; and that this statutory interpretation did not violate Noell’s
constitutional rights. Noell has applied to this Court for interlocutory review of the
trial court’s ruling, arguing that the trial court’s construction of OCGA § 19-7-3.1 is
erroneous and violates her fundamental constitutional rights as a parent.
The Supreme Court of Georgia “has exclusive jurisdiction over all cases
involving construction of the Constitution of the State of Georgia and of the United
States and all cases in which the constitutionality of a law, ordinance, or constitutional
provision has been called into question.” Atlanta Independent School System v. Lane,
266 Ga. 657, 657 (1) (469 SE2d 22) (1996) (citing Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI,
Par. II (1)). This exclusive jurisdiction extends “only to constitutional issues that were
distinctly ruled on by the trial court and that do not involve the application of
unquestioned and unambiguous constitutional provisions or challenges to laws
previously held to be constitutional against the same attack.” State v. Davis, 303 Ga.
684, 687 (1) (814 SE2d 701) (2018) (citation and punctuation omitted).
In this case, the trial court expressly rejected Noell’s as-applied constitutional
challenge to its interpretation of OCGA § 19-7-3.1, and it does not appear that this
issue previously has been decided. See generally Dias v. Boone, 320 Ga. 785, 801 (3)(c)
(912 SE2d 547) (2025) (recognizing, but not resolving, “difficult questions” about the
constitutionality of the Equitable Caregiver Statute). Therefore, jurisdiction of this
application may lie in the Supreme Court of Georgia. As that Court has the ultimate
responsibility for determining appellate jurisdiction, see Saxton v. Coastal Dialysis &
Med. Clinic, 267 Ga. 177, 178 (476 SE2d 587) (1996), we hereby TRANSFER this
application to the Supreme Court for disposition.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________
04/27/2026
I certify that the above is a true extract from
the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Witness my signature and the seal of said court
hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.