The Supreme Court affirmed the final judgment in the parties’ divorce case, holding that the trial court did not fail to consider evidence of family violence presented at trial, where the trial court’s order provided that it was entering judgment after hearing the testimony of the parties and considering all of the evidence at trial, and neither party requested that the trial court make written findings of fact. Next, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding primary physical custody of the children to the husband, as the evidence in the record supported its decision. Finally, the doctrine of induced error barred the wife from challenging the trial court’s calculation of the husband’s gross monthly income for child support purposes, where the trial court’s calculation was the same as that which the wife provided in her child support worksheet.

Finklea v. Finklea, S11F1804 (01/09/2012)

Fulton County Daily Report, January 13, 2012

Judgment entered in divorce and custody action, which resulted in certain equitable division of property, child support orders entered against both parties, and custody of parties’ only child to paternal grandparents, affirmed; trial court did not err in barring mother’s counsel from questioning guardian ad litem (GAL) about her knowledge of applicable legal standards in custody award to third party and whether GAL was familiar with named appellate case, since role of GAL at trial is not to expound on matters of law, but as expert witness on best interest of child in question; record belied mother’s contention that court improperly terminated her cross-examination of GAL, after trial court halted disputed line of questioning; clear and convincing evidence of parental unfitness, particularly on mother’s part, supported trial court’s award of custody of parties’ minor child to his paternal grandparents; inter alia, evidence showed illegal drugs and alcohol abuse in mother’s home, mother admittedly purchased alcohol for consumption by at least one of child’s half-brothers, some of half-brothers were arrested on multiple charges while in home,  mother was arrested incident to drug raid in her home, mother required child to provide his urine so that third party could pass court-ordered drug test, there were significant violent episodes in home, mother violated DFACS safety plan with regard to child, child was absent for at least 29 days in first four months of kindergarten, and mother removed from her name and placed in name of her sons all assets, including homes, vehicles, bank accounts, and ownership of certain pedigree dogs, in obvious attempt to become judgment proof and obtain various forms of government assistance; in contrast, paternal grandparents were both retired from gainful employment, they had extensive contact with child, child spent considerable time in their custody under temporary custody order, they worked with child’s school to improve child’s situation, they provided child with stable and nurturing environment, which promoted his health and welfare, and his confidence had improved while in their care; some evidence, including mother’s own e-mail relating that her money included ‘ “anywhere from $108,000 to  $105,000 plus,” ‘ supported amount of child support order entered against her; ample evidence of father’s time and labor spent on extensive work on parties’ marital residence justified $20K award to him as his equitable share of marital estate; mother’s contention that neither she nor father had interest in house on basis that another son owned house, rejected, since clear inference from trial court’s findings was that title to residence in mother’s teenaged son was sham.

Harris fln/a Snelgrove v. Snelgrove, S11F0892 (11/21/11)

Fulton County Daily Report, December 9, 2011

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

Order refusing to allow husband to seek downward modification of child support pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 19-6-15 (j), reversed, as floor amount of child support provided in parties’ settlement agreement did not construe clear and express waiver of right of modification; parties’ decision not to include in their agreement well-worn waiver language set forth in Varn v. Varn, 242 Ga. 309 (1978), or its equivalent, suggested that they did not intend to forbid statutory downward modification of husband’s child support obligation, even below floor amount.

Dean v. Dean, S11A0739 (09/12/11)

Fulton County Daily Report, September 23, 2011

Judgment of father’s petition for legitimation and visitation, partially vacated; absent transcript, record presumably supported trial court’s findings that custody and visitation decision was in child’s best interest, and evidence presumably supported trial court’s findings regarding child support; grant of $2.5K in attorneys’ fees to mother, vacated, and case remanded, as trial court’s order failed to specify any basis for award.

Charlot v. Goldwire, A11A0684 (07/01/11)

Fulton County Daily Report, July 22, 2011

Trial court’s corder entered in post-divorce lititation, AFFIRMED; trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding mother in contempt for taking parties’ 11 year-old son to counseling because trial court’s previous order gave father final decision-making authority for child’s health and medical issues, and father disappoved of therapist to wom mother took child; trial court did not err when, after finding that mother withheld visitation from father, it dismissed contempt, visitation, and custody portions of mother’s petiton and did not permit mother to present evidence on merits of dismissed claims, pursuant to OCGA 19-9-24 (b); because mother filed current petition for modificaiton of child support 11 months after trial court dismissed her earlier petition for modificaiton of child support, trial court did not err in dismissing portion of mother’s peition seeking modificaiton of child support, pursuant to OCGA 19-6-15 (k)(2); trial court did not err as matter of law when it refused to allow guardian ad litem to interview child’s therapist without father’s consent because mother previously consented to entry of modified consent order appointing guardian ad litem and providing that guardian was not authorized to speak with child’s  therapist without permission of both parents; trial court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered mother to pay remainder of fees owed guardian ad litem because mother was ot prevailing party, and no statute required that trial court consider parties’ relative financial circumstances when apportioning shares of guardian’s fees pursuant to consent order ; trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to apply rule of sequestration to unidentifed woman in courtroom because woman did not testify; trial court did not lack jurisdiction to deny mother’s motion to set aside award of attorneys’ fees, despite fact that mother previously filed notice of appeal from underlaying judgment, because underlying judgment was final, and trial court’s award of attorney’s fees did not supplment, ament, alther, ormodify that judgment; mother’s application for sicretionary review of denial or her motion to set aside award of attorneys’ fees, proper, because where both OCGA 5-6-34 (a) and 5-6-35(a) are involved, application for appeal is required when uderlying subject matter of appeal is listed in 5-6-34(a).

Avren v. Garten, S11A0688 (05/16/2011).

Fulton County Daily Report, May 27, 2011

Award of attorneys’ fees to mother, VACATED, and case remanded, but order establishing child custody, visitation and support, AFFIRMED; trial court did not err in failing to make findings of fact regarding alleged deviation based on zero income of mother because father failed to show that trial court made deviation that required findings of fact; trial court’s determination that mother had no monthly gross income and its decision to omit from Schedule D father’s cost of health insurance premiums, assumed correct, because father failed to include transcript of hearing in record on appeal, and father made no assertion that he was aggrieved by fact that Schedule D failed to set forth any amount for insurance premiums; trial court did not err in failing to make findings of fact with respect to adjustment for mother’s work related child care costs because evidence did not show that adjustment was deviation; finally, as mother conceded, trial court erred by failing to make findings of fact sufficient to support its award of attorney’s fees.

Kennedy v. Kennedy, A11A0427 (05/16/2011).

From:  Fulton County Daily Report (06/3/2011)

Order granting father’s petition to modify child custody rights awarded to mother in parties’ prior divorce decree, PARTIALLY REVERSED; mother’s claim of error in trial court’s custody award, DISMISSED, as child turned 18 shortly after instant appeal was docketed; trial court ERRED to extent that it required mother to pay child support pursuant to OCGA 19-6-15 (e), with no limit as to age, because financial assistance after child reaches age of majority but is still in secondary school is only required until child reaches age 20; trial court’s award of attorneys’ fees to father, VACATED and case remanded, because original award of attorneys’ fees failed to include statutory basis for award of findings authorized award, and no evidence showed that mother received proper notice or opportunity for hearing.

Francis-Rolle v. Harvey, A11A0357 (05/05/11)

From:  Fulton County Daily Report, May 20, 2011

Order granting father’s petition to modify child custody rights awarded to mother in parties’ prior divorce decree, PARTICIALLY REVERSED; mother’s claim of error in trial court’s custody award, DISMISSED, as child turned 18 shortly after instant appeal was docketed; trial court ERRED to extent that it required mother to pay child support pursuant to O.C.G.A. 19-6-15 (e), with no limit as to age, because financial assistance after child reaches age of majority but is still in secondary school is only required until child reaches age 20; trial court’s award of attorneys’ fees to father, VACATED and case remanded, because original award of attorneys’ fees failed to include statutory basis for award or findings authorizing award, and no evidence showed that mother received proper notice or opportunity for hearing.