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

Denial of father’s motion for summary judgment, AFFIRMED, in action brought by child’s maternal grandparents seeking visitation with child; trial court DID NOT abuse its discretion in denying summary judgment, pursuant to O.C.G.A. 9-11-56(f), to allow guardian ad litem to investigate facts as some evidence showed that lack of relationship between grandparents and child might not be fault of grandparents.

Lightfoot v. Hollins, A10A1923 (01/26/2011)

From:  Fulton County Daily Report 2/11/2011

Judgment affirmed in parties’ divorce case; given conflicting evidence, trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting primary physical custody of parties’ children to wife; husband’s objection to trial court’s appointment of woman, who met wife and children, in her role as executive director of children advocacy center, rejected, since trial court appointed woman to evaluate children’s psychological condition and parental relationships, not to serve as children’s guardian ad litem.

From:  Fulton County Daily Report (10/16/09).

Kidd v. Kidd, S09F1350 (10/05/09), 09 FCDR 3145

Attorneys: George M. Saliba II, Phillip N. Golub.

Judges: H. Arthur McLane, Lowndes Superior Court; Supreme Court of GA, Benham