The Court of Appeals affirmed the order legitimating William Hendrix as the father of J. M., holding that the trial court did not clearly err in concluding that Hendrix did not abandon his opportunity interest in developing a relationship with his biological son. Hendrix was involved and interested in his child during the pregnancy, initiated a child support proceeding and began paying child support upon the mother’s filing of an abandonment petition, and initiated the legitimation proceeding as soon as he was financially able upon receipt of DNA test results.

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

Judgment of father’s petition for legitimation and visitation, partially vacated; absent transcript, record presumably supported trial court’s findings that custody and visitation decision was in child’s best interest, and evidence presumably supported trial court’s findings regarding child support; grant of $2.5K in attorneys’ fees to mother, vacated, and case remanded, as trial court’s order failed to specify any basis for award.

Charlot v. Goldwire, A11A0684 (07/01/11)

Fulton County Daily Report, July 22, 2011

Trial court’s attempt to change order on legitimation petition from dismissal with prejudice to dismissal without prejudice, REVERSED; changing order in subsequent term of court from dismissal with prejudice to dismissal without prejudice was not clerical error but substantive change not authorized under Georgia law.

Ivery v. Brown, A10A2298 (02/07/2011)

From:  Fulton County Daily Report, February 25, 2011.

Denial of legal father’s motion to intervene in biological father’s legitimation action, REVERSED, as legal father had interest in action; ‘ “[t]here can be no doubt that a man married to a woman at the time of conception or birth is a party at interest when another man claims fatherhood of the child in a legitimation proceeding”‘ ‘ and, since legal father filed his motion to intervene before final judgment was entered, his rights were not protected by another party, and his interest as child’s legal father would be impaired by unfavorable decision; judgment granting biological father’s legitimation peitition, vacated, and case remanded for consideration of legal father’s motion to dismiss.

Baker v. Lankford, A10A1211 (10/05/2010), 10 FCDR 3281

From:  Fulton County Daily Report, October 22, 2010.

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

Judgment granting appellee’s petition for legitimation and awarding temporary custody of appellant’s child, first to appellee, then to appellee’s parents and then to appellee again, VACATED; trial court erred in granting appellee’s petition to legitimate, since no evidence was presented regarding issues necessary for determination of whether to grant legitimation at May 29, 2008, 30 Day Conference on appellee’s petition; for same reason, trial court erred in granting appellee’s petition for temporary custody, since only mother is entitled to custody of child, until legitimation is properly entered; no authority grants legitimation by default; case remanded with direction for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Ernst v. Snow, A10A0602 (07/13/10), 10 FCDR 2452

From:  Fulton County Daily Report, 07/30/2010.

Denial of father’s petition to legitimate his child, REVERSED; though he did not contact child after August 2004, father’s constant payment of financial support, coupled with his avowed interest in establishing and maintaining relationship with child, mitigated against finding of abandonment; case remanded for trial court to determine whether legitimation is in child’s best interest.

Binns v. Fairnot, A08A0207 (06/27/08), 08 FCDR 2317

From:  Fulton County Daily Report, 07/18/2008.

Order denying father’s petition to legitimate minor and terminating father’s parental rights AFFIRMED, as trial court did not err in denying father’s legitimation petition; father abandoned his opportunity interest to develop relationship with minor, since father did not spend any significant time with minor, after living with minor for one year, and did not pay child support or send cards or letters to minor; father’s argument that trial court wrongfully denied right to counsel during termination of parental rights hearing, REJECTED, because he lacked standing to challenge termination of his rights; father’s contention that juvenile court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, REJECTED, because juvenile court has original jurisdiction unless termination petition is filed in connection with formal adoption proceedings.

In the Interest of J.S., A10A0186 (02/12/2010), 10 FCDR 413.

From:  Fulton County Daily Report, 2/26/2010.