New Georgia Family Law Family Law Blog | Remboldt Law Firm, LLC
  • New GA Court Opinions
  • Resources - Books
  • Resources - More
  • About
  • Contact

Father submitted himself to trial court’s personal jurisdcition of Dekalb County, GA

Posted Jul.15, 2011 by Cynthia J. Remboldt, Esq., under Custody, Divorce, Jurisdiction, UCCJEA

 Child Custody, Divorce, Jurisdiciton, UCCJA

Judgment denying father’s motion to vacate judgment of divorce AFFIRMED, and judgment modifying father’s custody order, AFFIRMED; father’s contention that divorce court lacked jurisdiction based on residency of his children, whom he alleged resided in Ethiopia when divorce was filed and when divorce decreee was issued in 2006, was moot, since trial court entered 2010 custody modificaiton and parenting plan order, it was uncontested that children and their mother resided in Dekalb county then and father submitted himself to trial court’s personal jurisdcition when he filed his cusotdy modificaiton pleading and he appeared for hearing on same; father’s contention that trial court erred in failing to make jurisdictional findings regarding children’s home state in body of 2010 custody modificaiton and parenting plan on basis that Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiciton Act generally requires such findings, rejected, since there is no such authority where, as here, trial court did not decline jurisdiciton on basis of being inconvenient forum or stay matter because of another custody action in foreign jurisdiciton.

Wondium v. Getachew, S11A0647 (05/16/2011)

Share/Save
Leave a Comment

GA trial court correctly avoided any presumption against wife’s anticipated relocation

Posted Jul.11, 2011 by Cynthia J. Remboldt, Esq., under Custody

 Child Custody, relocation

Final judgment and decree of divorce, AFFIRMED; evidence supported trial court’s award of primary physical cusotdy of parties’ child to wife, and trial court correctly avoided any presumption against wife’s anticipated relocation; wife had served as primary caregiver since child’s birth; wife had strong, loving relaionship with child; and husband, both before and during divorce proceedings, exhibted conduct casting doubt on his trustworthiness, truthfulness and judgement.

Reed v. Reed, S11A0052 (05/16/11)

From:  Fulton County Daily Report, 5/27/2011

Share/Save
Comments Off

GA Father In Contempt For Failing To Enroll Son In Henry County School.

Posted Jul.03, 2011 by Cynthia J. Remboldt, Esq., under Contempt, Custody, Jurisdiction, UCCJEA

 Child Custody, Child Support, Civil Contempt, Visitation Rights

Judgement modifying parties’ custody, child support and visitation and ruling that father was in contempt for failing to enroll parties’ son in Henry county school system as agreement incorporated into parties’ final divorce decree required, AFFIRMED; record supported trial court’s conclusion that father willfully failed to enroll his son in Henry county school system as  agreement required, particularly in light of his failure to communicate with child’s mother before moving child out of state and his failure to seek judicial reevaluation of custody based upon his planned move;  father’s contention that trial court ‘ “erred by relying on a facially invalid self-executing custody provision”‘ in parties agreement, REJECTED, as agreement included no such provision; father’s claim that agreement ‘ “effectively restricted him from establishing residence anyway other than Henry County” ‘ and constituted unlawful attempt to retain jurisdiction over child REJECTED, since agreement provided only that judicial reevaluation of custody would be triggered if father moved; issuance of final order modifying custody in separate action mooted father’s claim of error regarding trial court’s ex parte emergency order in contempt action; evidence supported trial court’s finding that father ‘ “fled with the child to an out-of-state undisclosed location and hid the child.  the father intentionally avoided contact with the mother for a significant amount of time;” ‘ record belied defendant’s contention that trial court concluded that defendant’s military assignment prevented him from providing stable home environment for the child.

Roberts v. Kinsey, A10A2122 (03/23/2011)

Fulton County Daily Report:  April 8, 2011

 

Share/Save
Leave a Comment

GA Modification of Child Custody

Posted Jun.21, 2011 by Cynthia J. Remboldt, Esq., under Attorney Fees, Child Support, Custody, Divorce

 attorney's fees, Child Custody, Child Support, Divorce, Expense of Litigation, Modification

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

Share/Save
Comments Off

Ga Lifts Visitation Restrictions

Posted Jun.17, 2011 by Cynthia J. Remboldt, Esq., under Contempt, Custody, Modification, Parental Rights, Visitation

 Civil Contempt, Modificaiton, Visitation Rights

Order lifting certain restrictions on visitation rights of mother AFFIRMED, as OCGA 19-9-3(b) authorized trial court to modify visitation rights during contempt proceeding; trial court did not abuse its discretion in modifying terms of final judgment to allow mother to resume unsupervised visitation because no evidence showed that mother was present danger to children as she testified that since her visitation rights have been restricted based on her failure to demonstrate that someone had directly witnessed her give urine sample for certain test, she had been seeing physician specializing in addiction medicine and had provided him with urine samples for testing, and no evidence showed that she actually tested positive for drugs or alcohol during prior test or at any subsequent test.

Gildar v. Gildar, A11A0759 (06/01/11)

From:  Fulton County Daily Report, (06/17/2011)

Share/Save
Leave a Comment

GA Jurisdicion and Findings of Fact

Posted Jun.06, 2011 by Cynthia J. Remboldt, Esq., under Custody, Divorce, Jurisdiction, UCCJEA

 Child Custody, Divorce, Jurisdiction, UCCJA

Judgment denying father’s motion to vacate judgment of divorce AFFIRMED, and judgment modifying father’s custody order, AFFIRMED; father’s contention that divorce court lacked jurisdiction based on residency of his children, whom he alleged resided in Ethiopia when divorce was filed and when divorce decree was issued in 2006, was moot, since trial court entered 2010 custody modification and parenting plan order, it was uncontested that children and their mother resided in DeKalb county then and father submitted himself to trial court’s personal jurisdiction when he filed his custody modification pleading and he appeared for hearing on same;  father’s contention that trial court erred in failing to make jurisdictional findings regarding children’s home state in body of 2010 custody modification and parenting plan on basis the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act generally requires such finds, rejected, since there is no such authority where, as here, the trial court did not decline jurisdiction on basis of being inconvenient forum or stay matter because of another custody action in foreign jurisdiction.

Sondium v. Getachew, 11 FCDR 1470

From:  Fulton County Daily Report:  May 27, 2011

Share/Save
Leave a Comment

GA Child Cusotdy, Child Support, Modificaiton, and Visitation Appeal

Posted Jun.04, 2011 by Cynthia J. Remboldt, Esq., under Appeal, Attorney Fees, Contempt, Custody, Modification

 Appeal, Child Cusotdy, Child Support, Modificaiton, Visitation

Trial court’s orders entered in post-divorce litigation, 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 disapproved of therapist to whom mother took child; trial court DID NOT ERROR when, after finding that mother withheld visitation from father, it dismssed contempt, visitation, and custotdy portions of mother’s petition and did not permit mother to present evidence on merits of dismssed claims, pursuant to O.C.G.A. 19-9-24 (b); because Mother filed current petition for modification of child support 11 moths after trial court dismissed her earlier petition for modification of child support, trial court DID NOT ERROR in dismissing portion of mother’s petition seeking modification of child support, pursuant to O.C.G.A. 19-6-15 (K)(2); trial court DID NOT ERROR as matter of law when it refused to allow guardian ad litem to interview chid’s thereapist 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 thereapist without permission of both parents; trial court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered mother to pay remainder of fees owned guardian ad litem because mother was not prevailing party, and no statue required that trial court consider parties’ relative financial circumstances when apportioning share of guardian’s fees pursuant to consent order; trial court DID NOT ABUSE its discreton in declining to apply rule of sequestration to unidentifed woman in courtroom because woman did not testify; trial court did not lack jurisdiciton to deny mother’s motiuon to set asside ward of attorney’ fees, despite fact that mother previously filed notice of appeal from underlying judgment, because underlying judgment was final, and trial court’s award of attorneys’ fees did not supplement, amend, lter, or modify that judgment; mother’s application for discretionary review of denial of her motion to set aside award of attorney’s fees, proper, because where both OCGA 5-6-34 (a) are involved, application for appeal is requiered when uderlying subject matter of appeal is listed in 5-6-35(a).

Avren v. GArten, S11A0064

From:  Fulton County Daily Report, May 27, 2011

Share/Save
Leave a Comment

GA divorce, child custody, child support, drug testing affirmed.

Posted Apr.26, 2011 by Cynthia J. Remboldt, Esq., under Child Support, Custody, Divorce

 Child Custody, Child Support, Divorce, drug testing

Final judgement and decree of divorce, AFFIRMED; trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to amke deviation from amount of presumptive child support for couple’s only child based on award of joint physical and legal custody because trial court made express findgs reguarding approporiateness of presumptive child support amount, and because evidence showed that trial court’s failure to deviate did not deprive child or unjustly enrich wife; because evidence showed that husbnad had ingested drugs during child’s lifetime, trial court did not abuse its discretion in requiring that he be periodically drug tested; trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding joint physical custody of child because trial court found both parents to be fit and proper, acknowledging that each parent had strengths and weaknesses, and other evidence, namely  fact that child had good relationship with each parent and each parent had adequate housing for child and could provide for child’s needs, supported award; trial court did not abuse its discretion in deciding which parent would have decision-making authority on variety of subjects regarding child; trial court did not err in entering judgement and decree of divorce within 10 months of filing of complaint or in failing to adopt wife’s recollected versionof what transpired during hearing in favor of court reporter’s certified transcript. 

Willis II v. Willis, S10F1357 (01/24/2011)

From:  Fulton County Daily Report, 2/4/2011.

Share/Save
Leave a Comment

Trial court’s award of primary custody of children to father, AFFIRMED.

Posted Mar.24, 2011 by Cynthia J. Remboldt, Esq., under Custody, Modification

 Affidavit, Child Custoday, Modification

Trial court’s award of primary custody of children to father, AFFIRMED, since fact that trial court read case file – which included testimony previously submitted by affidavit, but not admitted into evidence – did not provide that trial court consdered affidavit as evidence for purposes of final hearing or used information in affidavit in reaching decision.

Carroll v. Carroll, A10A2332 (11/29/10), 10 FCDR 3938.

From:  Fulton County Daily Report, 12/17 /2010.

Share/Save
Leave a Comment

GA court DID NOT ERR in inputing income to unemployed father because he did not make effort to gain employment.

Posted Mar.03, 2011 by Cynthia J. Remboldt, Esq., under Child Support, Custody, Modification

 Child Custody, Child Support, Modification

Downward modification of child support award as well as modification of visitation and parenting time, AFFIRMED, after father petitioned for modifications of both child custody and child support awards based on his becoming unemployed; trial court DID NOT ERR in failing to make its downward modification of child support in child support, and thus O.C.G.A. § 10-6-15 (j), did not apply to keep child support from accruing; trial court DID NOT ERR in inputing income to father, despite his involuntary unemployment, because evidence showed that he was unemployed for proplonged period of time and did not make significant effort to gain employment; no factual basis supported father’s argument that trial court relied on incorrect estimate of mother’s income, since mother’s financial affidavit included both salary and tips; trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to modify downward father’s obligation reguarding child’s medical and dental exprenses because trial court was not required to allocate parties’ share of child’s healthcare expenses at same rate as their share of child support award, and parties did not present evidence on subject to trial court; trial court did not err in failing to address father’s visitation suggestions because it determined that there was no evidence of material change in circumstances warranting medification of current custodial agreement.

Galvin v. Galvin, S10A1104 (11/01/10), 10 FCDR 3467

From:  Fulton Count Daily Report, 11/12/2010.

Share/Save
Leave a Comment
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Search

Categories

  • Adoption (7)
  • Alimony (16)
  • Appeal (26)
  • Articles (3)
  • Attorney Fees (28)
  • Capacity (3)
  • Child Support (51)
  • Common Law Marriage (1)
  • Contempt (18)
  • Custody (77)
  • Deprivation (28)
  • DFACS (2)
  • Divorce (49)
  • Equitable Division (23)
  • Evidence (20)
  • Grandparents (14)
  • Guardan Ad Litem (1)
  • Insurance Benefits (1)
  • Jurisdiction (26)
  • Legitimation (4)
  • Mediation (1)
  • Military (1)
  • Modification (21)
  • Parental Rights (27)
  • Paternity / Legitimation (8)
  • Prenuptial Agreement (5)
  • Property Settlement (4)
  • Service by Publication (1)
  • Service of Process (1)
  • Settlement Agreement (12)
  • Temporary Protective Order (TPO) (3)
  • Transcripts (10)
  • Trial Counsel (4)
  • UCCJEA (8)
  • UIFSA (2)
  • Uncategorized (7)
  • Visitation (15)

Archives

  • May 2012 (5)
  • April 2012 (7)
  • March 2012 (8)
  • February 2012 (7)
  • January 2012 (8)
  • December 2011 (8)
  • November 2011 (6)
  • July 2011 (4)
  • June 2011 (6)
  • May 2011 (9)
  • April 2011 (3)
  • March 2011 (8)
  • February 2011 (8)
  • January 2011 (7)
  • October 2010 (10)
  • September 2010 (7)
  • August 2010 (6)
  • July 2010 (10)
  • June 2010 (10)
  • May 2010 (11)
  • April 2010 (9)
  • March 2010 (9)
  • February 2010 (10)
  • January 2010 (11)
  • December 2009 (10)
  • November 2009 (10)
  • October 2009 (3)
  • September 2009 (7)
 
Powered by WordPress.   A CJ Remboldt Blog
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.
Copyright 2010 by Cynthia J. Remboldt, JD/MBA. All rights reserved. You may reproduce materials available at this site for your own personal use and for non-commercial distribution. All copies must include this copyright statement.