The report is candid in naming Georgia’s legitimation process as confusing, burdensome, and demoralizing for many families. Recommendations such as streamlining uncontested cases, standardizing forms, encouraging mediation, expanding legitimation stations, and addressing judicial backlogs are pragmatic and actionable.

At the same time, the report has clear limitations. For example, it fails to create concrete pathways for reconciling biological and legal parenthood, collecting reliable data, and advancing awareness and education.

The House Study Committee on the Affordability and Accessibility of Georgia’s Legitimation Process was created during the 2025 session of the Georgia General Assembly. Its charge was narrow but consequential: examine whether Georgia’s legitimation framework — particularly for unmarried biological fathers — can be improved to make it more affordable, accessible, and understandable, while still serving the best interests of children. The Committee consisted of five House members and convened three public meetings across the state, intentionally inviting testimony from legal practitioners, judges, advocates, fathers, and policy experts.

From the outset, the Committee’s work was framed by a fundamental tension embedded in Georgia law. Georgia distinguishes between paternity and legitimation, treating them as separate legal concepts. Paternity establishes biological responsibility, including child support obligations, while legitimation is required for an unmarried father to gain enforceable parental rights, such as custody or visitation. As acknowledged in the Committee’s final report on legitimation (released in December), Georgia is largely an outlier in maintaining this bifurcated system, a reality that creates confusion, financial burdens, and emotional strain for families.

Fathers Incorporated (FI) was an active and consistent participant in this process. Kenneth Braswell testified at all three meetings — Atlanta, Columbus, and Augusta — bringing to the Committee not only policy analysis, but lived experience drawn from decades of working directly with fathers across Georgia. 

FI’s involvement was not episodic or symbolic. It reflected a sustained effort to ensure that the Committee heard directly from practitioners who understand how legitimation operates in real life, particularly for low-income fathers, fathers of color, and fathers who are already engaged in their children’s lives but lack legal standing. 

Core Issues in Georgia’s Legitimation Law

Across the three meetings, FI consistently encouraged the committee to wrestle with several core issues, many of which are reflected, explicitly or implicitly, in the final report.

• Confusion About Paternal Rights: FI pressed the committee to confront the widespread confusion surrounding birth certificates, voluntary acknowledgements of paternity, and parental rights. Testimony emphasized that many fathers believe signing a birth certificate makes them the legal father in all respects, only to learn later that they have no enforceable rights to custody or visitation without legitimation. The report squarely acknowledges this misunderstanding, noting that the state requires fathers to sign documents that impose responsibility without conferring rights, a dynamic that undermines trust in the system and discourages engagement.
• Cost as a Barrier to Legitimation: FI also urged the Committee to examine cost as a structural barrier, not a personal failure. Filing fees, service of process costs, genetic testing expenses, attorney fees, and the lack of guaranteed appointed counsel were raised repeatedly. The report reflects this concern, documenting how financial barriers can be particularly demoralizing for low-income fathers and how indigency waivers and local assistance programs are inconsistent across jurisdictions.
• The Role for Mediation in Legitimation: At each Committee hearing, FI advocated for mediation and non-adversarial pathways wherever possible. Drawing from fatherhood and co-parenting work statewide, testimony highlighted how the current court-centric model can escalate conflict, particularly when a father’s first interaction with the process involves law enforcement serving papers. The Committee’s recommendation to incentivize or mandate mediation in legitimation cases aligns directly with this advocacy.
• Support for Fathers to Navigate Legitimation: FI encouraged the Committee to look beyond statutes and consider systems of support. Testimony in the hearings elevated the importance of navigation assistance, standardized forms, plain-language guidance, and community-based resources that help fathers understand and complete the process. The report’s discussion of the Columbus Legitimation Station — and its recommendation that judicial circuits consider replicating such models — mirrors this emphasis on access through assistance rather than complexity.

Strengths of the Final Report on Legitimation

In assessing the strengths of the final report, several stand out. The report is candid in naming Georgia’s legitimation process as confusing, burdensome, and demoralizing for many families. It does not minimize the lived experiences shared during testimony, nor does it reduce the issue to abstract legal theory. The report’s acknowledgment that nearly half of Georgia’s children are born to unmarried parents underscores the scale and urgency of the problem.

The Committee also demonstrated discipline in focusing on achievable reforms. Recommendations such as streamlining uncontested cases, standardizing forms, encouraging mediation, expanding legitimation stations, and addressing judicial backlogs are pragmatic and actionable within Georgia’s existing legal framework. The report avoids reactionary policymaking and shows awareness of past reforms — particularly the rise and repeal of administrative legitimation — and the unintended consequences that can follow poorly integrated changes.

Limitations in the Legitimation Committee’s Final Report

At the same time, the report has clear limitations.

The Committee stops short of fully interrogating whether Georgia’s bifurcated approach to paternity and legitimation remains appropriate in a modern family landscape. While the Uniform Parentage Act is discussed, the report does not advance a concrete pathway for reconciling biological parenthood with legal parenthood in a way that reduces friction.

The report also acknowledges, but does not resolve, the lack of reliable statewide data on legitimation filings, completion rates, and outcomes. Without better data, policymakers are left to infer the magnitude of the problem and the impact of reforms. FI consistently raised this issue during testimony, and it remains an unfinished task.

Finally, the Committee’s recommendations focus heavily on court processes without fully integrating prevention-oriented strategies. Education at hospitals, clearer explanations at the point of birth, partnerships with fatherhood organizations, and early legal literacy could reduce the need for contested legitimation. These ideas are present between the lines, but they are not fully developed as policy recommendations. 

Next Steps for Reforming Legitimation in Georgia

From the perspective of FI, the steps toward reforming legitimation in Georgia are clear:

• Georgia should treat legitimation not merely as a legal remedy, but as a child well-being strategy. 
• Streamlining uncontested cases must be paired with early education so fathers understand their rights and responsibilities before conflict arises. 
• Mediation should become the norm, not the exception. 
• Legitimation stations and navigation supports should be expanded statewide, particularly in rural and high-need communities. 
• Data collection must improve so reform efforts can be measured rather than assumed. 

Ultimately, Georgia must continue the more complicated conversation about whether its legal framework reflects the realities of modern families or perpetuates unnecessary barriers to responsible fatherhood.

The Study Committee’s report represents meaningful progress. It validates what fathers, advocates, and practitioners have been saying for years. 

FI’s involvement helped ensure that the voices of engaged fathers were not abstracted or sidelined. The work now shifts from study to action, where legislative courage, administrative leadership, and community partnership will determine whether legitimation becomes a bridge to father involvement or remains an obstacle course that families must survive.

We invite you to read the Committee’s final report here, and visit FI’s web page on reforming legitimation in Georgiafor more information on this essential work.