, 844 S.E.2d 482 (2020). Custody of child as proper subject of declaratory action, 170 A.L.R. 624, 284 S.E.2d 641 (1981). 895, 409 S.E.2d 275 (1991). 275, 758 S.E.2d 613 (2014). Elder v. Elder, 184 Ga. App. - In making award, court may consider fitness for custody, character, personality, and general health. In all instances any court order will be the first course of action for the care of a child during the absence of a military parent, and the military family care plan will be the alternative plan if the nondeploying parent either refuses to provide care for the child or acknowledges an inability to provide reasonable care for the child. Trial court did not abuse the court's discretion by modifying child custody in favor of the father because the record before the trial court included evidence and findings that although both parties were capable of providing for the child, the mother had sufficiently undermined the child's relationship with the father to justify a modification of primary physical custody in favor of the father for at least 18 months as in the best interest of the child. - Self-executing change in custody to the mother failed to provide for a determination whether the custody change was in the best interest of the child at the time the change would automatically occur; thus, the change violated Georgia's public policy as expressed in O.C.G.A. Extraterritorial effect of provision in decree of divorce as to custody of child, 160 A.L.R. 891, 792 S.E.2d 139 (2016). - Decree awarding custody cannot anticipate changes which may occur in condition of parents, or in their character and fitness for care of their children. Trial court erred by failing to consider a father's motion for attorney's fees and costs because the father requested the fees and costs in writing and the trial court held that a number of the mother's post-trial motions were frivolous and vexatious, but did not mention or rule on the father's longstanding request for fees and costs incurred up to and including trial. William joined Richardson Bloom & Lines LLC in February of 2016. Family Law Section - State Bar of Georgia 19-9-3(b) and19-19-1(b) with those of O.C.G.A. - In a child support and custody proceeding, the order awarding the mother attorney fees was vacated and the case was remanded for the trial court to reconsider the issue because the court failed to state the statutory basis for any award and any necessary findings to support the award. Family, Estate Planning, Immigration and Personal Injury. 35, 482 S.E.2d 527 (1997); Martin v. True, 232 Ga. App. Acworth, GA Family Law Lawyer with 35 years of experience. Jur. 19-9-3 that a trial court take into account the factual situation at the time the custody modification is sought, with the court's paramount concern always remaining the best interests and welfare of the minor child. REGISTRATION IS NOW OPEN! When trial judge has exercised discretion in making award of minor children as between divorced parents, the supreme court will not interfere unless evidence clearly shows abuse of the discretion vested in the judge. A temporary modification order for a parenting plan shall expire upon the completion of the transition period and the predeployment parenting plan shall establish the rights and responsibilities between parents for the child; Upon a petition to modify an existing parenting plan being filed by a deploying parent and upon a finding that it serves the best interest of the child, the court may delegate for the duration of the deployment any portion of such deploying parent's parenting time with the child to anyone in his or her extended family, including but not limited to an immediate family member, a person with whom the deploying parent cohabits, or another person having a close and substantial relationship to the child. In custody case, state as parens patriae is materially concerned, and through agency of court is virtually a party to judgment, although action proceeds nominally as one between parents only. Tirado v. Shelnutt, 159 Ga. App. 19-9-3(a)(4) and (5) so as to give these two sections sensible and intelligent effect, the court of appeals held that a trial court retains exclusive authority to grant joint physical custody; thus, when the parties' 14-year-old child specifically requested that the parties be awarded joint legal and physical custody, the trial court properly held that the election was invalid because the election interfered with the court's authority. Jury instructions. Handley v. Handley, 204 Ga. 57, 48 S.E.2d 827 (1948). Initial award or denial of child custody to homosexual or lesbian parent, 62 A.L.R.5th 591. 19-9-3 or some other statute. The judge may issue an order granting temporary custody to the selected parent for a trial period not to exceed six months regarding the custody of a child who has reached the age of 11 but not 14 years where the judge hearing the case determines such a temporary order is appropriate. Such delegated parenting time shall not create any separate rights to such person once the period of deployment has ended; If the court finds it to be in the child's best interest, a temporary modification order for a parenting plan issued under this subsection may require any of the following: The nondeploying parent make the child reasonably available to the deploying parent to exercise his or her parenting time immediately before and after the deploying parent departs for deployment and whenever the deploying parent returns to or from leave or furlough from his or her deployment; The nondeploying parent facilitate opportunities for the deployed parent to have regular and continuing contact with his or her child by telephone, e-mail exchanges, virtual video parenting time through the Internet, or any other similar means; The nondeploying parent not interfere with the delivery of correspondence or packages between the deployed parent and child of such parent; and. Turman v. Boleman, 235 Ga. App. Rev. Husband's alcoholism and resulting cruel treatment of wife and children are relevant to custodial fitness. denied, 563 U.S. 988, 131 S. Ct. 2447, 179 L. Ed. Waller v. Waller, 202 Ga. 535, 43 S.E.2d 535 (1947). Georgia Code :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia Barnes v. Tant, 217 Ga. 67, 121 S.E.2d 125 (1961). Order of court in divorce decree, to effect that child of parties should remain within jurisdiction of court and that court retained jurisdiction of cause and parties thereto, constituted an attempt on part of the trial court to retain exclusive jurisdiction of case, which may not be done. - Father was properly denied visitation when there was evidence that the father had not seen the child in 18 months, the father had been arrested twice for operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and had been cited for failure to maintain a lane while driving, and the father failed to demonstrate that the child was a priority in the father's life. denied, No. Remarriage, alone, of one of parties is not such change of circumstances affecting welfare of child as will justify change in custody. - Evidence that children preferred to live with their father rather than move to another state with their mother supported a change in custody of the children from their mother to their father. Right to require psychiatric mental examination for party seeking to obtain or retain custody of child, 99 A.L.R.3d 268. Lurry v. McCants, 302 Ga. App. Awards - Family Law Section Awards Awards and Accomplishments The Family Law Section has been honored as the "Section of the Year" by the State Bar on an incredible six different occasions. Newman v. Newman, 223 Ga. 278, 154 S.E.2d 581 (1967). 386, 685 S.E.2d 374 (2009). Doctrine of res judicata applies in custody case when award of custody has been made; and judge may thereafter exercise discretion as to custody of children only so far as there may be new and material conditions and circumstances substantially affecting interest and welfare of children. Murphy v. Dixon, 218 Ga. 111, 126 S.E.2d 616 (1962). In an action to modify child custody, the trial court was authorized to award attorney fees under O.C.G.A. Brooks v. Thomas, 193 Ga. 696, 19 S.E.2d 497 (1942). - For article recommending more consistency in age requirements of laws pertaining to the welfare of minors, see 6 Ga. St. B.J. Hill v. Rivers, 200 Ga. 354, 37 S.E.2d 386 (1946); Knox v. Knox, 226 Ga. 619, 176 S.E.2d 712 (1970). Law vests broad discretion in trial court judge regarding custody awards, and unless it appears that such discretion has been manifestly abused, action in awarding custody of minor child will not be disturbed by the appellate court. Driver v. Sene, 327 Ga. App. - When custody of minor child awarded by divorce decree is forfeited in mother by reason of her unfitness, custody automatically inures to father, unless it is lost in one of the modes provided by law, or unless he is "unfit" to have custody. The parental selection by a child who has reached the age of 14 may, in and of itself, constitute a material change of condition or circumstance in any action seeking a modification or change in the custody of that child; provided, however, that such selection may only be made once within a period of two years from the date of the previous selection and the best interests of the child standard shall apply. 602, 583 S.E.2d 254 (2003). In all cases between parents for custody of minor child, law imposes upon trial judge duty to exercise sound discretion and let welfare of child control the judge's award. - Provision in a divorce agreement prohibiting either party from having unrelated overnight guests of the opposite gender while the parties' children were present was not overly broad or unduly burdensome, nor did the provision violate public policy, and a trial court did not err in enforcing the provision and finding the mother in contempt for the provision's violation. 791, 692 S.E.2d 47 (2010). Elders v. Elders, 206 Ga. 297, 57 S.E.2d 83 (1950). Unless the court determines that it would not be in the child's best interest, a temporary modification order for a parenting plan shall set a date certain for the anticipated end of the deployment and the start of the transition period back to the predeployment parenting plan. Epstiner v. Spears, 340 Ga. App. 129 (1931); Butts v. Griffith, 189 Ga. 296, 5 S.E.2d 907 (1939); Loggins v. Loggins, 191 Ga. 779, 14 S.E.2d 91 (1941); Moody v. Moody, 193 Ga. 699, 19 S.E.2d 504 (1942); Attaway v. Attaway, 194 Ga. 448, 22 S.E.2d 50 (1942); Bond v. Norwood, 195 Ga. 383, 24 S.E.2d 289 (1943); Connor v. Rainwater, 200 Ga. 866, 38 S.E.2d 805 (1946); Carter v. Carter, 201 Ga. 850, 41 S.E.2d 532 (1947); Good v. Good, 205 Ga. 112, 52 S.E.2d 610 (1949); Fennell v. Fennell, 209 Ga. 815, 76 S.E.2d 387 (1953); Johnson v. Johnson, 211 Ga. 791, 89 S.E.2d 166 (1955); Boge v. McCollum, 212 Ga. 214, 91 S.E.2d 619 (1956); Rowell v. Rowell, 212 Ga. 584, 94 S.E.2d 425 (1956); Boge v. McCollum, 212 Ga. 741, 95 S.E.2d 665 (1956); Slade v. Slade, 212 Ga. 758, 95 S.E.2d 680 (1956); Perry v. Perry, 213 Ga. 847, 102 S.E.2d 534 (1958); Mathews v. Murray, 101 Ga. App. 24, 2015). Mallette v. Mallette, 220 Ga. 401, 139 S.E.2d 322 (1964). Inasmuch as the record shows that this divorce action terminated with the entry of a final judgment and decree; that the wife subsequently changed her residence to another county; and that the husband filed his motion to modify outside the term of court, the trial court erred in ruling on the husband's motion to modify visitation. 885, 717 S.E.2d 504 (2011). 745, 815 S.E.2d 113 (2018). Vines v. Vines, 292 Ga. 550, 739 S.E.2d 374 (2013). 624, 284 S.E.2d 641 (1981). Registration is - State Bar of Georgia Family Law Section 2020 Georgia Code :: Title 51 - Torts :: Chapter 2 - Justia Law Death of mother of child whose custody has been awarded to her or to third person by divorce decree as reviving father's common-law duty to support, or right to custody of, child, 128 A.L.R. Harbin v. Harbin, 238 Ga. 109, 230 S.E.2d 889 (1976). Adams v. Adams, 219 Ga. 633, 135 S.E.2d 428 (1964). Fifadara v. Goyal, 318 Ga. App. William A. Alexander is a Partner with Bloom Lines Alexander LLC, where he practices exclusively in the area of domestic relations law. The Family Law Section is an unlimited source of assistance and guidance for its members while always keeping integrity and respect as its primary goals. 353, 759 S.E.2d 72 (2014). Edler v. Hedden, 344 Ga. App. 977 (1915). The 2017 amendment, effective January 1, 2018, substituted "prescribed by the Judicial Council of Georgia" for "set forth in Code Section 9-11-133" near the end of subsection (h). In a post-decree custody modification action authorized by a prior version of O.C.G.A. Adams v. Adams, 206 Ga. 881, 59 S.E.2d 366 (1950). Restrictions on parent's child visitation rights based on parent's sexual conduct, 99 A.L.R.5th 475. 24, 2015). 24, 2015). Fortson v. Fortson, 195 Ga. 750, 25 S.E.2d 518 (1943), later appeal, 197 Ga. 699, 30 S.E.2d 165 (1944). 199, 796 S.E.2d 919 (2017). 433, 52 L.R.A. - Judge in divorce case has broad discretion in determining which parent is entitled to custody of minor child or children. Free Consultation Offers Video Conferencing Family, Criminal, DUI and Divorce. Tirado v. Shelnutt, 159 Ga. App. Evidence supported the trial court's conclusion that there had been no material change in circumstances affecting the children because, as the mother acknowledged in her brief, the parental discord had been ongoing since before the prior custody award, and the trial court was entitled to determine that the worsening in the communication between the mother and father was not so significant as to rise to the level of a material change in circumstances. As a testament to his distinguished, 35-year career as a family law attorney, the Family Law Section of the State Bar of Georgia awarded Joe with its annual Professionalism Award in 1999 and later named it in his honor, "The - Under Georgia law when the head of the family is sought to be held liable for some wrong committed by a member of one's family within the scope of the family purpose doctrine, that member of the family need not necessarily be joined as a party defendant. Durham v. Gipson, 261 Ga. App. Universal Citation: GA Code 19-9-3 (2020) In all cases in which the custody of any child is at issue between the parents, there shall be no prima-facie right to the custody of the child in the father or mother. Mother and father have equal status. Upon the filing of an action for a change of child custody, the judge may in his or her discretion change the terms of custody on a temporary basis pending final judgment on such issue. Elders v. Elders, 206 Ga. 297, 57 S.E.2d 83 (1950). Harbin v. Harbin, 238 Ga. 109, 230 S.E.2d 889 (1976). 86, 47 S.E.2d 823 (1948); Adams v. Heffernan, 217 Ga. 404, 122 S.E.2d 735 (1961). 230 (1938). 265 (2001). Coppedge v. Coppedge, 298 Ga. 494, 783 S.E.2d 94 (2016). Brown v. Brown, 222 Ga. 446, 150 S.E.2d 615 (1966). Fulton County, GA Family Law Attorney. January 1, 2023. Knox v. Knox, 226 Ga. 619, 176 S.E.2d 712 (1970). Stone-Crosby v. Mickens-Cook, 318 Ga. App. Bankston v. Warbington, Ga. App. 256 (1970). That father has no prima facie right to custody does not enlarge third parties' rights. Askew v. Askew, 212 Ga. 46, 90 S.E.2d 409 (1955); Wilt v. Wilt, 229 Ga. 658, 193 S.E.2d 833 (1972). For note on 1993 amendment of this Code section, see 10 Ga. St. U.L. 19-9-3(a)(5) by failing to honor the fourteen year old child's election to live with the father despite finding the father to be a fit parent because fitness was not a consideration under O.C.G.A. Kuehn v. Key, 325 Ga. App. 859, 172 S.E.2d 643 (1969), see 7 Ga. St. B.J. 795, 769 S.E.2d 544 (2015). S. Ct. R. 24.9(8)(g); the father was also ordered to pay a portion of the mother's attorney's fees. Having made the wishes of a 14-year-old as to custody binding upon the court unless the parent chosen is unfit, the 1986 legislation could not have intended to preclude consideration of the child's wishes as to visitation. "(4) Children are being denied the opportunity to enjoy loving homes with blind parents or other blind caretakers. It was within a trial court's discretion to deny a father's request for modification of visitation based on the mother's evidence showing that the children were thriving under the current visitation schedule and to discredit the contrary evidence proffered by the father through witnesses who had not seen the children for a number of years. 19-9-3(b) based on the evidence showing that the original order did not accurately reflect the trial court's ruling; however, the trial court's order neither set forth nor incorporated a parenting plan as required by O.C.G.A. The Section also monitors legislation and assists in drafting legislation in the area of family law. 669 (1918). 353, 829 S.E.2d 402 (2019). Any pleading filed to establish a parenting plan or child support order under this paragraph shall be identified at the time of filing by stating in the text of the pleading the specific facts related to the deployment and by referencing this paragraph and subsection of this Code section; When an impending deployment precludes court expedited adjudication before deployment, the court may agree to allow the parties to arbitrate any issues as allowed under Code Section 19-9-1.1, or order the parties to mediation under any court established alternative dispute resolution program. 86, 47 S.E.2d 823 (1948). Trial court did not err in modifying custody, visitation, and child support as the father showed that a material change in circumstances adversely affecting the child had occurred because, inter alia, the mother's actions to conceal the location of the mother's residence from the father violated the divorce decree; and the mother's decision to move to another county added to the child's commute time and showed an intention to interfere with the father's relationship with the child; thus, based on the negative impact of those changes on the child, the trial court properly concluded that the child's best interests would be served by a change in the custody arrangement. Jur. - In contest for custody between two parties, both of whom are fit and proper persons, one having legal right should prevail. When custodial parent dies, prima facie right of custody automatically enures to surviving parent. 628, 811 S.E.2d 434 (2018). Handley v. Handley, 204 Ga. 57, 48 S.E.2d 827 (1948). In determining the best interests of the child, the judge may consider any relevant factor including, but not limited to: The love, affection, bonding, and emotional ties existing between each parent and the child; The love, affection, bonding, and emotional ties existing between the child and his or her siblings, half siblings, and stepsiblings and the residence of such other children; The capacity and disposition of each parent to give the child love, affection, and guidance and to continue the education and rearing of the child; Each parent's knowledge and familiarity of the child and the child's needs; The capacity and disposition of each parent to provide the child with food, clothing, medical care, day-to-day needs, and other necessary basic care, with consideration made for the potential payment of child support by the other parent; The home environment of each parent considering the promotion of nurturance and safety of the child rather than superficial or material factors; The importance of continuity in the child's life and the length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment and the desirability of maintaining continuity; The stability of the family unit of each of the parents and the presence or absence of each parent's support systems within the community to benefit the child; The mental and physical health of each parent, except to the extent as provided in Code Section 30-4-5 and paragraph (3) of subsection (a) of Code Section 19-9-3 and such factors as provided in Code Section 15-11-26; Each parent's involvement, or lack thereof, in the child's educational, social, and extracurricular activities; Each parent's employment schedule and the related flexibility or limitations, if any, of a parent to care for the child; The home, school, and community record and history of the child, as well as any health or educational special needs of the child; Each parent's past performance and relative abilities for future performance of parenting responsibilities; The willingness and ability of each of the parents to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship between the child and the other parent, consistent with the best interest of the child; Any recommendation by a court appointed custody evaluator or guardian ad litem; Any evidence of family violence or sexual, mental, or physical child abuse or criminal history of either parent; and. - When trial court awards 14-year-old child to parent selected by such child as parent with whom the child desires to live, it is tantamount to finding that such parent is fit, just as denial of such child's request must be construed as finding that such parent is unfit. 19-9-3 in the court's analysis. - No parental right of custody by judgment or decree can defeat right of child reaching 14 years of age to select parent with whom that child desires to live. 667, 791 S.E.2d 428 (2016). 19-9-3(d) in a divorce against exposure of the parties' children to members of the gay and lesbian community who were acquainted with the husband was improper because there was no evidence that any member of the excluded community had engaged in inappropriate conduct in the presence of the children. Scott v. Scott, 276 Ga. 372, 578 S.E.2d 876 (2003). this Section. Trial court properly granted the parties joint legal custody of the child, awarded the father primary physical custody, and afforded the mother visitation rights as the father could provide for the child's basic needs and care, the father was gainfully employed in a job that allowed the father flexibility to care for the child, the father had taken steps to establish a home for the child, and the father and the child had developed a bond; the mother was involved in an abusive relationship, and took specific actions to keep the mother's parents and the father away from the child; and the father facilitated the required visitation with the mother, and made efforts to ensure that the child spent time with the father's and the mother's parents. Chalk v. Poletto, 346 Ga. App. Pruitt v. Butterfield, 189 Ga. 593, 6 S.E.2d 786 (1940); Dyche v. Dyche, 218 Ga. 833, 131 S.E.2d 104 (1963). Trial court did not abuse the court's discretion by modifying child custody by awarding the father primary custody under O.C.G.A. Admissibility of social worker's expert testimony on child custody issues, 1 A.L.R.4th 837. - Although the trial court decided to follow the guardian ad litem's recommendation as to custody, nothing in the record suggested that the trial court failed to exercise the court's own judgment regarding what was in the best interests of the children and because there was evidence to support the trial court's ruling, the father failed to show any abuse of the trial court's discretion.
