Grant of primary custody of parties’ two minor children to mother, affirmed, as evidence supported trial court’s decision; although both parents were fit and spent quality time with children, father did not have concrete childcare plan and did not engage children in age-appropriate activities with other children, while mother lived new her parents, who could help with childcare, and planned summer camps and social events for children; amount of child support awarded to mother, affirmed, as trial court properly ascertained that mother was was not willfully underemployed, and trial court was not required to abate father’s child support obligation or award him child support during children’s summer visitation with him.

Rowden v. Rowden, S11F0812 (11/07/11)

Fulton County Daily Report, November 18, 2011

Order granting father’s petition to legitimate his biological son, affirmed, as trial court properly determined that father did not abandon his opportunity interest in forming relationship with his child; father developed and maintained relationship with his child from his birth on December 30, 2007, until mother blocked his access to child in February 2010, and father supported child financially from his birth and even after he was no longer allowed contact with him; mother’s contention that father waived his opportunity interest in child by offering mother no emotional or financial support during her pregnancy, rejected, since father’s lack of involvement prior to child’s birth ‘ “is as significant as such a disregard after the child is born,” ‘ but no authority limits trial court’s inquiry into whether father has abandoned his opportunity interest to period before child’s birth, especially where, as here, father evidenced clear intent to be involved in his child’s life following his birth; trial court did not err in excluding character evidence unrelated to issue of custody in determining what arrangement was in child’s best interest; trial court did not abuse its discretion in using mother’s former income of $32K per year in calculating child support, since she voluntarily terminated her employment; any issue surrounding supersedeas imposed when mother filed motion for new trial was moot; father’s motion for frivolous appeal penalties, denied.

Caldwell v. Meadows, A11A1031 (10/14/11)

Fulton County Daily Report, November 4, 2011

Continuation of custody of minor mother’s 2-year-old child with DFACS, affirmed, as juvenile court did not err in holding review hearing without mother present; pretermitting whether court erred in not continuing hearing, mother failed to establish that she was harmed by not being present, as she did not allege that her attorney did not adequately represent her interests or that juvenile court erred in its disposition of case; juvenile court did not err in admitting certain unauthenticated documents, as all helpful information may be received in proceeding involving child custody, other non-hearsay evidence supported juvenile court’s findings, and mother failed to show how she was harmed by documents’ admission.

In the Interest of N. H., A11A1280 (10/20/11)

Fulton County Daily Report, November 4, 2011

Denial of father’s contempt motion, affirmed, as trial court did not impermissibly modify parties’ prior divorce decree in holding that mother can use her custodial time with parties’ children in any way she deems appropriate; trial court merely clarified extent to which father’s decision-making authority with regard to children’s extracurricular activities can encroach upon mother’s custodial time.

Earle v. Earle, A11A1450 (10/18/11)

Fulton County Daily Report, November 4, 2011

Award to their maternal grandparents of permanent custody of two special needs children who had previously been adjudicated deprived, affirmed, with limited visitation to parents, as clear and convincing evidence showed that parental custody would harm children and that grandparents’ custody would best promote children’s health, welfare and happiness; while parents consistently failed to attend to children’s special needs and physical well-being, grandparents had served as children’s primary caregivers for several years, were fully cognizant of their special needs, were actively involved in securing services and therapies for children and charting their progress, and were in position due to their retirement to carefully monitor children on daily basis; for same reasons, juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying parents’ motion for reunification, which sought to modify or vacate unexpired deprivation order based on alleged change in circumstances.

In the Interest of D. W. and L. W., A11A1463; A11A1464; A11A1465 (09/15/11)

Fulton County Daily Report, September 30, 2011

Termination of mother’s parental rights to her older child, affirmed, as evidence authorized juvenile court to find that mother voluntarily and knowingly consented to termination of her rights; mother claimed that her attorney gave her option of proceeding with termination hearing and risking loss of both children or signing consent for older child, who presumable had special needs, while retaining her rights to younger child for at least six months so that she could continue to work on her case plan, however, no evidence showed that fraudulent representations were made regarding older child’s health condition to induce mother to sign written consent; mother admitted to her attorney that she knew older child had special needs, she declined opportunity to review child’s medical records with her attorney, and she proceeded with executing voluntary written consent, based on her own observations of child’s special needs, rather than awaiting further psychiatric evaluation regarding child’s questionable autism diagnosis; no evidence showed that mother signed consent under duress—any pressure in OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (12), rejected, since Georgia Supreme Court has ruled that due process does not require state to provide appellant review to civil litigants, even in termination of parental rights cases.

In the Interest of A. B., a child, A11A1281 (09/08/11)

Fulton County Daily Report, September 23, 2011

Denial of mother’s and maternal grandmother’s motion to dismiss paternal grandparents’ petition for visitation rights or in alternative to transfer case for improper venue, reversed, as mother was not properly served with process , even though she was subject to personal jurisdiction pursuant to Georgia’s long-arm statute; clear and convincing evidence rebutted paternal grandparents’ prima facie case of proper service under long-arm statute based on sheriff’s return of service, since sheriff served mother at maternal grandmother’s prior Georgia address, even though mother was residing in Arizona at that time, and paternal grandparents submitted no evidence showing that service was proper other than sheriff’s return of service; venue was not proper in Effingham county, since maternal grandmother moved to Chatham county before paternal grandparents filed their petition; although maternal grandmother continued to utilize her former Effingham county residence address to retain certain benefits including filing temporary guardianship petition there and keeping her children in Effingham county schools, evidence showed that she was domiciled in Chatham county, so case remanded with direction for trial court to transfer it to Chatham County Superior Court.

Oglesby v. Deal, A11A1239 (09/08/11)

Fulton County Daily Report, September 23, 2011