Lump-sum back-child support award against father VACATED, and case remanded for trial court to reconsider award in light of father’s annual income and his other child support obligations;  Weaver v. Chester, 195 Ga. App. 471 (1990), set custodial parent’s actual expenditures as ceiling or maximum for back-support award, but in no way set those expenditures as minimum for such award, and trial court must follow Child Support Guidelines, which include consideration of both parent’s income and their other child support obligations; evidence showed that father earned less than $27K per year, while child’s natural mother, father’s ex wife, erned nearly three time that amount, and father has five adopted children throughhis remarriage; mother’s testimony regarding her actual child-care expenses over 12 yers, of which she had personal knowledge, supported trial court’s finding that mother expended $83.6K for child-care during that time periold.

Smith v. Carter, A10A1760 (07/30/10), 10 FCDR 2674.

From:  Fulton County Daily Report

Grant of father’s motion for upward modification of mother’s child support obligation, REVERSED, as evidence did not support trial court’s ruling that mother had ability or means to earn amount, which trial court found that she could earn per month and upon which it based award; it was undisputed that mother’s income and earning capacity ad dramatically decreased from what trial court notes and projected in 2005 order and from what she actually earned in 2006 and 2007; in 2008 mothers was earning $13 per hour for gross income of approximately $1.5K per month, of which $1K went towards her monthly day care bills,  her hours as office administrator for dental practice could not be increased due to economic turn down, and she could not pursue career selling real estate, because of depressed real estate market and her inability to fund out-of-pocket expenses required of real estate agent; no evidence showed that mother was willfully underemployed, or that she was voluntarily suppressing her income to avoid child support payments; evidence did not support finding that mother was not legally pursuing biological father of her illegitimate child for child support as means of suppressing her income; $2.5K attorneys’ fee award for father, REVERSED, as evidence did not support trial court’s determination that mother had ability to pay such amount; case remanded to trial court for entry of award, which evidence supports.

Herrin v. Herrin, S10A0384 (06/28/2010), 10 FCDR 2063

From:  Fulton County Daily Report, 07/09/2010.

Judgment in parties’ divorce case, PARTIALLY REVERSED, and case REMANDED; final degree internally contradicted each party’s share of their minor child’s uninsured health case expenses, since test of decree required 61-39 percent split and incorporated child support addendum required 50-50 split; trial court erred in ordering husband to maintain minor child’s health insurance, without including that expense in calculating his child support obligation, since husband testified that his monthly heath premium would be $238, OCGA 19-6-15 (b)(6) requires proration of child care and health insurance expenses between parents in arriving at adjusted child support obligation and, under section (b)(7), trial court must modify adjusted child support obligation by factoring amount of health and child care expenses each parent actually pays; trial court did not abuse its discretion in requireingwife to pay half of loan balance as of date of divorce decree, rather than date of trial, even though trial court did not enter decree until 155 days after trial, since trial court has broad discretion in dividing marital property, and OCGA 15-6-21(a), which requires rulings on motion within 30 days after hearing in counties with less than 100K inhabitants applies only to motions for new trials, injunctions, demurrers, and all other motion, not to bench trials in divorce actions; trial court had discretion to order sale of parties’ residence and to account for how existing mortgage would be paid until sale; trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering husband to continue paying mortgage on marital residence, where he still resided, until he purchases home or it is sold; husband benefited from trial court’s omission of steps requiring pro ration of child care expenses under 19-6-15(b) because trial court order parents to split child care expenses equally and father’s pro rate share of expenses would have been 57&; trial court did not abuse its discretion in its visiation award.

Dupree v. Dupree, S10F0516 (06/07/2010), 10 FCDR 1824

Judgment increasing mother’s child support obligation, REVERSED, as trial court erred in modifying it without finding substantial change in mother’s income, since entry of final divorce decree; mother’s monthly income has decreased from $2.1K to $0, due to her decision to become a stay-at-home mother to her child from her new marriage, even if trial court correctly disregarded voluntary reduction in mother’s income, evidence did not show increase in mother’s income in 2 1/2 years since her divorce, and neither party presented evidence of mother’s husband’s income; trial court erred in awarding attorney’s fees to father under OCGA 19-9-3(g) and 19-6-15(K)(5), since father was not prevailing party, in light of fact that evidence did not support increase in child support award; evidnece did not support attorneys’ fee award under any statute, in any event, as father did not provide his attorney’s actual costs or reasonableness of those costs; trial court used correct standard of whether this was material change in condition affecting children’s well being in ruling that evidence supporte denial of mother’s petition for modification of custody; mother failed to show that father’s mother’s home was inadequate for their children, that father’s late shifts at work materially affected children’s welfare, or that allowing their daughter to finish out last six wweeks of her school year at her previous school, after father moved with children to his mother’s home, adversely affected her well-being.

Harris v. Williams, A10A0294 (06/11-2010), 10 FCDR 1918.

From:  Fulton County Daily Report (06/25/2010)

Denial of appellant’s motion for contempt and emergency change of custody, AFFIRMED, as some evidence supported trial court’s ruling that appellee was not in contempt; though parties’ divorce decree did not award child support due to appellant’s then existing health problems, it did not debar appellee from exercising his legitimate right to seek child support at some future time and appellant failed to show that change in custody was necessary or in child’s best interest; absent transcript, evidence presumably supported trial court’s ruling, in any event; after trial court declined to award any child support in divorce action, appellee filed action for child support through Child Support Enforcement Office, which entered order granting support from appellant, though order was later temrinated to to appellant’s health problems.

Jones v. Foster, A10A0278 (05/03/2010), 10 FCDR 1527

From:  Fulton County Daily Report (05/14/2010)

Child support order AFFIRMED; trial court did not abuse its discretion under O.C.G.A. § 19-6-15 in ordering child support based on statutory formula, without applying discretionary parenting-time deviation; father failed to show that proportional amount of his parenting time constituted special circumstance, which would make presumptive amount of child support excessive or that child’s best interest would be served by subtracting from presumptive amount; father’s contention that trial court was required to issue findings to explain its reasoning in reaching its decision, REJECTED, since such finding are required only if trial court or jury decides to deviate from presumptive amount.

Hamlin v. Ramey, A08A0214 (04/04/08), 08 FCDR 1361.

From:  Fulton County Daily Report (04/25/08)

Order transferring custody of minor child from paternal grandmother to child’s mother, REVERSED, trial court ERRED in depriving father and grandmother of opportunity to question guardian ad litem about results of his investigation, since father and grandmother bore burden of proving that return of custody to mother would harm child and that remaining with grandmother was in child’s best interest; trial court ERRED in failing to include written findings in its child support award; trial court acted within its discretion in prohibiting any party from having unrelated overnight guests of opposite sex during periods of physical custody or visitation.

Simmons v. Williams, A07A2218 (03/27/08), 08 FCDR 1256

From:  Fulton County Daily Report (04/18/08)

Dismissal of mother’s petition for change of custody, which included request for child support, REVERSED; trial court erred in ruling that it lacked jurisdiction over matter, on basis that child was 18 years old when it held hearing, since mother filed petition when child was still minor and child’s change of legal custody, even for brief period of time prior to his majority, was relevant to question of child support for that period of time; ruling on child support petition after child reached majority did not divest mother of her right to seek award of child support from time peition was filed through remaining period of child’s majoirty;  O.C.G.A. § 19-6-15(e) provides that custodial parent may seek to extend child support payments for child who has reach age of majority, but has not completed his or her secondary education, as alleged herein; trial court erred in failing to consider mother’s petition for change of custody as petition for child support, since petition included request ofr child support and child support claim was inextricably tried to mother’s peition to gain legal custody as O.C.G.A. § 19-6-19 requires.

Wade f/k/a Corinthian v. Corinthian, S08A0363; S08A0363 (05/19/08), 08 FCDR 1694.

From:  Fulton County Daily Report (05/30/08)

Order finding that appellant was not entitled to reimbursement of more than 11.5K in overpaid child support to appellee, REVERSED, as prior consent order clearly and unambiguously provided that appellant was entitled to be reimbursed if appellee received payments from both appellant and Social Security Administration, which resulted in overpayment of child support as provided in order.

Whitehead v. Peavy, A08A0344 (05/02/08), 08 FCDR 1591

From:  Fulton County Daily Report 05/16/2008)

Judgment in parties’ divorce case, REVERSED, as trial court erred in ruling that appellant was estopped from denying obligation to support appellee’s minor child, who was not appellant’s biological or adopted child; although appellant signed application to amend child’s birth certificate to list him as her father and give her his name and he allegedly promised to take care of her and be her father, there was no evidence that his promise caused appellee to forego valuable legal right to her detriment; appellant identified child’s biological father, acknowledged that child was aware of his identity and stated that she never sought support, because he did not want anything to do with child.