Full Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia ATLANTA,____________________ August 12, 2026 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order: A26A2301. TE’ANDRE J. EDISON v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES. The Georgia Department of Human Resources (the “GDHR”) informed Te’Andre Edison that it intended to certify his child support arrears to the Georgia Department of Revenue and the U. S. Department of the Treasury and that any state or federal income tax refunds to which he might be entitled would be subject to interception to satisfy the debt. After an administrative hearing, the administrative law judge concluded that the GDHR could certify the debt Edison owed. Edison appealed to the Office of State Administrative Hearings (the “OSAH”). The OSAH affirmed the decision, and Edison filed a petition for review in superior court, which dismissed the petition. Edison then filed this direct appeal. We, however, lack jurisdiction. Under OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(1), however, a party seeking to appeal a superior court decision reviewing a lower tribunal ruling must follow the discretionary appeal procedure. Dunlap v. City of Atlanta, 272 Ga. 523, 524 (531 SE2d 702) (2000); Ga. Water Res. v. Comm’r of Labor, 193 Ga. App. 252, 252 (387 SE2d 374) (1989). “Compliance with the discretionary appeals procedure is jurisdictional.” Hair Restoration Specialists v. State, 360 Ga. App. 901, 903 (862 SE2d 564) (2021). Because Edison failed to file a discretionary application, we lack jurisdiction over this direct appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED. Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 08/12/2026 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.