The Court of Appeals reversed the denial of Sherry N. Sumner’s motion to dismiss Marcus C. Batchelor’s petition for change of child custody based on lack of jurisdiction, holding that the trial court erred in finding that venue was proper in Effingham county, since the original divorce order awarded custody of the children to Sumner, Sumner challenged the trial court’s jurisdiction in her responsive pleading, and she presented ample evidence that her residence was in Chatham county.

Sumner v. Batchelor, A11A1522, (02/03/12)

Fulton County Daily Report, February 17, 2012

The Court of Appeals reversed the juvenile court’s termination of reunification services based on a finding that the mother did not have sufficient housing for herself and her child, holding that clear and convincing evidence did not establish that the mother unjustifiably failed to comply with the housing requirements of the reunification plan or that continued reunification efforts would be detrimental to the child. The mother lost her own housing due to mold and mildew issues; while she was on a waiting list for government-assisted housing, the mother secured housing with relatives; the maternal grandmother, where the child was placed, offered adequate housing to the mother and the child; and the child was bonded with the mother, who visited with and provided care for the child on a daily basis. Given this holding, the Court also reversed the juvenile court’s award of custody of the child to the maternal grandmother until the child’s 18th birthday and remanded the case for further consideration in light of events occurring since the last permanency hearing. Finally, the Court rejected the mother’s contention that she did not receive proper notice that the issues of termination of reunification services and custody would be considered at the permanency hearing.

In the Interest of  D. H., A11A1628 (01/25/12)

Fulton County Daily Report, February 3, 2012

A divided whole Court of Appeals reversed the superior court’s grant of permanent custody of A. L., whose parents are deceased, to Shannon and Michael Ertters, A.L.’s aunt and uncle, holding that the court erred in giving custody to the Ertterses when a juvenile court’s prior order granting long-term custody to Denise Dunbar, A. L.’s grandmother, was unchallenged and still in effect. The juvenile court had exclusive original jurisdiction over the matter under OCGA § 15-11-28 (a) (1) (C), its long-term custody order remained in effect, and thus the superior court lacked jurisdiction over the matter. McFadden, J., joined by Barnes, P.J, and Mikell, J., dissented, noting that the majority correctly stated that a superior court has jurisdiction over a petition for permanent child custody, and a juvenile court cannot grant permanent custody absent a transfer order from the superior court. Because no transfer was involved here, the juvenile court could not grant permanent custody, but under the majority’s holding the superior court could not exercise authority over the matter either. No relevant authority supported the result that no court may exercise jurisdiction to consider a petition for permanent custody, which would result in a final adjudication of rights, while the long-term custody order, which was not set to expire until A. L. turned 18, was in effect.

Dunbar V. Ertter, A11A0933 (11/8/11)

Fulton County Daily Report, December 2, 2011

The Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of primary physical custody of the parties’ daughter to the mother, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Absent a request to do so, the trial court was not required to set forth in its order factual findings upon which to base a determination as to either parent’s fitness, and neither party made such a request here. Moreover, a fitness determination was implicit in the trial court’s award of joint legal custody to both parents, primary physical custody to the mother, and secondary physical custody to the father. The Court also held that evidence supported the trial court’s conclusion that awarding primary physical custody to the mother would result in the least amount of disruption in the child’s life and would be in her best interest.

Curtice v. Harwell, A11A2393 (12/08/11)

Fulton County Daily Report, December 29, 2011

The Supreme Court reversed the denial of Michelle Vaughn’s motion for new trial following the entry of the final order granting primary physical custody of her two children to former husband David Davis, holding that the trial court erred in relying on evidence adduced at a temporary custody hearing in violation of the rule set forth in Pace v. Pace, 287 Ga. 899 (2010). The record and the trial court’s final order explicitly established that the trial court relied on evidence from the temporary hearing, and there was no indication that either party was notified of this reliance in advance.

Vaughn v. Davis, S11A1950 (01/09/12)

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

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