Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s order finding that the minor child was deprived and awarding his custody to DFCS, holding that clear and convincing evidence established that the child was without the care necessary for his mental or emotional health because he and his father had not completed family counseling. The Court also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in delaying family therapy until the child was ready.

In the Interest of H. J., A11A1756 (12/08/12)

Fulton County Daily Report, December 29, 1012

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

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

Juvenile court’s order, reversed, to extent it awarded custody of first child to father, vacated, to the extent it found reunification was not in second child’s best interests and placed her with her paternal grandmother, and, affirmed to extent it found second child derived; juvenile court did not err in finding second child deprived because evidence showed that mother physically abused child on at least two occasions, police were notified on one of those occasions, mother pled guilty to simple battery, and mother’s psychologist testified that she believed it was unwise to return children to mother’s custody unless and until mother sought further psychiatric counseling; however, juvenile court’s order was insufficient to allow for meaningful appellate review on issue of whether reunification was not in second child’s best interest because it did not specify which, if any, of presumptions under O.C.G.A § 15-11-58 (h) supported its findings; juvenile court’s placement of second child with paternal grandmother, vacated, because no evidence showed that grandmother’s qualifications were submitted prior to juvenile court’s custody decision; juvenile court erred in transferring custody of first child to father, after it specifically found that first child was not deprived, because in deprivation proceeding, juvenile court is only authorized to transfer custody of deprived child.

In the Interest of T.S., A11A0420 (06/16/11)

Fulton County Daily Report, July 1, 2011

Order returning temporary custody of children to DFACS for additional 12 months and authorizing DFACS to discontinue providing reunification services, vacated, and case remanded; evidence that child was abused was based on child’s out-of-court statements, which were inadmissible hearsay because government did not show that child available to testify as required by child-hearsay statute; although trial courts presumably do not consider inadmissible evidence, order extensively discussed and relied upon hearsay, and no admissible evidence supported trial court’s findings; any error in trial court’s dismissal of new deprivation charges not addressed because mother could not show any harm from dismissal.

In the Interest of A.T., A11A0495 (06/07/11)

Fulton County Daily Report, June 24, 2011

Order ruling that primary custody of parties’ child should be granted to father, affirmed, as trial court did not err in so ruling, based upon mother’s planned move to New York; mother visited New York with child and moved some of child’s belongings to New York, without receiving written authorization from trial court, despite trial court’s order providing that parties were not to remove child from state of Georgia during pendency of case without further written order from trial court; mother’s claim that trial court erred in failing to make written findings of fact regarding material change in circumstances justifying change in custody to father, rejected.

Gallo v. Kofler, S11A0185 (06/13/11)

Fulton County Daily Report, June 24, 2011

Increase in mother’s visitation with her two children, affirmed, as it did not exceed time of custody allowed to father and thus did not amount to de facto change of custody; trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting parties’ communication with each other and attendance at children’s extracurricular activities, as these provisions did not infringe upon father’s rights and were narrowly tailored conditions justified by evidence; father failed to show that trial court’s refusal to admit certain cumulative custody evaluation reports was harmful, or that trial court abused its discretion in considering totality of evidence; denial of father’s motion for supersedeas, affirmed, as trial court did not exceed its authority in exempting visitation provisions of final order from supersedeas even after father filed note of appeal.

Blackmore v. Blackmore, A11A1277; A11A1526 (10/07/11)

Fulton County Daily Report, October 21, 2011

Order modifying terms of appellant’s visitation rights, affirmed, as custody evaluation was proper in this case though the case originally involved visitation; parties were divorced and consented to joint legal and physical custody of children; appellee filed petition seeking to modify terms of appellant’s visitation; custody evaluator was assigned to case, and her findings were not to be distributed except with court’s permission; appellant called expert witness who admitted to having copy of custody evaluator’s report; trial court granted appellee’s petition to modify appellant’s visitation; trial court did not err in declining to declare a mistrial after guardian ad litem advised court in chambers about statements made by one child, while appellant was not there, since his attorney was present and made no objection at the time, attorney waited until guardian placed evidence on record in matter before objecting, guardian did not introduce unreported evidence in chambers, and appellant failed to support argument that guardian’s statements so prejudiced court that it could not have ruled properly; prohibiting appellant’s expert from testifying about the report did not violate appellant’s due process rights; expert’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure was not violated; appellant had no standing to bring Fourth Amendment claim on behalf of expert, and expert consented to the court’s request to view file which contained unauthorized report; appellant properly held in contempt of court for allowing his expert to review the custody evaluator’s report; no error in denying appellant’s motion in limine to exclude from record portions of evaluator’s report that contained the children’s statements; to degree any statements could be considered hearsay, the courts have presumed to have disregarded it.

Gottschalk v. Gottschalk, A11A0262 (07/08/11)

Fulton County Daily Report, July 29, 2011

Order granting custody to biological father, REVERSED, since trial judge abused his discretion in granting father custody without allowing mother adequate opportunity to respond or prepare for hearing on issue of custody; father filed legitimation peittion shortly after child was born, four days prior to hearing on legitimation peittion, father filed amended petition requesting that trial court determine custody, trial court awarded joint legal custody to both mother and father, but named father as primary custodian and record showed that father’s general prayer for relief did not put mother on notice that he was asking trial court to determine custody at legitimation hearing; mother’s failure to answer original legitimation petition did not waive her right to respond to issue of custody; O.C.G.A. § 9-11-15 (a) states that party is generally entitled to 15 days to respond to amendment, mother was not allowed 15 days, and in fact, was given less than two business-day’s notice, therefore, she did not have reasonable opportunity to respond to amended peittion with such little notice given to mother, there was no assurance that trial judge gave proper consideration to child’s best interest.

Sherrington v. Holmes, A10A1066 (09/30/10), 10 FCDR 3224

From:  Fulton County Daily Report, 10/15/2010

Award of primary physical custody of couple’s minor child to husband, AFFIRMED, as evidence supported finding that award was in child’s best interest;  wife’s allegations of sexual abuse were inconclusive, wife’s handling of allegations had negative effect on child’s relationship with her father, husband, who worked nights, had assistance with childcare and husband was able to provide for his child’s need.

King v. King, S08F0810 (09/22/08), 08 FCDR 2933.

From:  Fulton County Daily Report 10/03/2008)