The Supreme Court of Georgia recently reversed a trial court’s decision in a custody modification case because the trial court erroneously relied on evidence from the temporary hearing in making its final custody determination. Vaughn v. Davis, S11A1950 (2012). In that case, the parties had been granted joint legal and physical custody of their children in their divorce action. Neither was required to pay child support to the other, but they were ordered to split the children’s expenses. Id. The mother later filed a motion for change of custody and child support. Id. At the temporary hearing at which both parties appeared pro se, the trial court entered a temporary order awarding primary physical custody to the father, with the visitation to the mother. The mother was also ordered to pay child support to the father. Id.
The mother retained an attorney prior to the final hearing in the case. At the final hearing, the trial court again granted primary physical custody to the father, with visitation for the mother. Id. at 2. After her motion for a new trial was denied, the mother appealed, contending “that the trial court erred by relying on evidence adduced at the temporary hearing.” Id.
The Supreme Court of Georgia agreed with the mother, citing a case from 2010 which held that “[t]he nature and quality of the evicence presented at a temporary hearing is likely to be different than that which is ultimately presented at the final hearing, and parties should ordinarily expect that only that evidence which their opponent sees fit to offer at the final, more formal hearing will be relied on to support the permanent custody award…Accordingly, we now hold that, absent express notice to the parties, it is error for a trial court to rely on evidence from the temporary hearing in making its final custody determination.” Id. at 2-3, quoting Pace v. Pace, 287 Ga. 899, 901 (2010).
Here, it is clear that the trial court relied on evidence from the temporary hearing in reaching its final custody decision, and “there is no indication that the parties were notified in advance that this was going to happen.” Vaughn at 3. Thus, the trial court’s order must be reversed and remanded for further proceedings.