Judgment PARTIALLY VACATED on father’s petition for joint custody, visitation rights and downward modification of his child support obligation as trial court erred in delaying effective date of its upward modification of father’s child support obligation for 15 months so that he could pay off child support arrearage; although trial court could delay full implementation of upward modification via phase-in, under OCGA 19-6-15, trial court had to provide for some amount, equal to or greater than 25 percent of new award, to take effect immediately; since arrearages cannot be considered in reducing gross income for child-support calculations, it would be inconsistent to allow those arrearages to delay implementation of statutorily-outline increase in child support.

Hampton v. Nesmith, A0801887 (11/13/08), 08 FCDR 3728

Fulton County Daily Report, 12/05/2008

Denial of mother’s petition to modify custody based on allegations that father touched children inappropriately while they visited him, REVERSED, and case remanded;  trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying mother’s petition, because evidence showing sexual abuse was not conclusive; trial court erred in refusing to consider additional evidence from witness discovered after hearing, but before final ruling, because trial court in custody action must consider all facts and conditions, which present themselves up to time of rendering final judgment.

Hardin v. Hardin, A10A0572 (04/06/10), 10 FCDR 1347

From:  Fulton County Daily Report (04/23/2010)

Denial of father’s motion to hold mother, father’s ex-wife, in contempt for failing to comply with couple’s 2005 divorce decree, which awarded father legal and primary physical custody of couple’s children, AFFIRMED; grant of mother’s petition for change in custody and award of joint legal an primary physical custody of children to mother, AFFIRMED; consolidation of father’s motion for contempt and mother’s custody petition was not prohibited by O.C.G.A. § 19-9-23, because custody action was filed as separate action in father’s county, not as responsive pleading; moreover, father cannot complain, because he did not object to consolidation and acquiesced in joint hearing; trial court DID NOT ERR in denying father’s contempt motion, because there was no evidence of willful disobedience of court order; trial court DID NOT ERR in granting mother’s custody petition on grounds that material change of condition affecting welfare of children had occurred since last order, because evidence showed that father failed to provide financially for his children, was uninvolved in their lives and did not enforce original custody order despite being awarded primary physical custody of children.

Saravia v. Mendoza, A10A0391, A10A0392 (03/31/10), 10 FCDR 1173

From:  Fulton County Daily Report, (04/16/2010).

Dismissal of father’s new/amended contempt application concerning mother’s alleged violation of his visitation rights, REVERSED; father had right under O.C.G.A. § 5-6-34 as amended to directly appeal dismissal of his contempt motion, father’s new contempt motion gave mother adequate notice of nature of his claim and trial court’s sua sponte dismissal without hearing did not afford father due process; mother’s contention that trial court lacked personal jurisdiction was meritless, even though mother had moved out of state, since father’s properly served prior contempt motion was still pending when he served mother with new/amended motion and father’s service of new/amended motion on mother’s attorney of record in prior pending action was sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction.

Dennis v. Dennis, A10A0500 (03/10/10), 10 FCDR

From the Fulton County Daily Report, 3/26/2010.

Trial court’s order awarding sole custody to father, AFFIRMED; trial court was presumably correct in allowing father to bring his petition for modification, because mother did not show that father’s petition was filed as prohibited counterclaim under O.C.G.A § 19-9-23(c); moreover, father’s petition bore a different case number than mother’s petitions and parties’ actions were filed almost simultaneously; doctrine of unclean hands does not apply in child custody cases and trial court was not required to retain custody with mother simply because father picked up minor from mother’s mother and step-father’s house; trial court DID NOT abuse its discretion in finding material change in circumstances affecting minor’s welfare, because mother left minor in her mother and step-father’s care for several months without notifying father and forged court order in attempt to take child away from father.

Lynch v. Horton, A09A1934 (3/03/10), 10 FCDR 638

From the Fulton County Daily Report – 3/19/2010

Judgment of trial court REVERSED in father’s action under OCGA § 19-11-12 for modification of his monthly child support obligation as trial court applied high income deviation from presumptive child support award without making all required findings under OCGA § 19-6-15 (c)(2) – trial court’s order failed to state how application of presumptive amount of child support would be unjust or inappropriate and how upward deviation would serve best interest of children; Court has jurisdiction over appeals from orders in child support modification proceedings, which arise from prior divorce or alimony action, regardless of code section under which parties pursued modification, i.e. OCGA § 19-11-12 or 19-6-19, and Court had jurisdiction in this case, because case involved alimony for support of children; striking and redocketing appeal was not necessary to preserve Court’s ultimate jurisdiction in this case.

Spurlock v. Department of Human Resources, S09A1475 (2/15/2010), 10 FCDR 399.

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

Ruling on contempt sanction partially reversed; trial court impermissiby modified divorce decree when it ordered ex-husband to pay his ex-wife $1875 in lieu of transferring one-half of his 401(K) account to her;  contempt order did not merely clarify 401(K) provision in divorce decree, but transmuted award into presently-due-cash obligation; ample evidence supported trial court’s finding that ex-wife did not willfully disobey divorce decree provision requiring her to leave marital residence – run-down mobile home – in same condition; trial court did not fail to consider parties’ financial circumstances in awarding ex-wife $1,200 in attorney’s fees for contempt proceeding but trial court should reconsider fees on remand and consider revising it in its discretion to extent it was based on 401(k) issue; ex-husband waived right to closing argument at contempt hearing when he failed to request it.

Killingsworth v. Killingsworth, S09A1137 (11/23/09)

From:  Fulton County Daily Report (12/4/2009)