Atlanta Divorce Attorney Blog

When presenting your divorce, custody modification, child support modification, or other family law case to the trial court, it is imperative that your Atlanta divorce attorney presents all relevant evidence in your case. The Supreme Court of Georgia recently denied an appeal by a father in a divorce case who attempted to present evidence in his appellate brief that he did not present at his hearing in front of the Dekalb County trial court. Bankston v. Lachman, 286 Ga. 459 (2010). In that divorce case, the trial court awarded primary physical custody of the parties’ two-year-old daughter to the mother and awarded visitation to the father “for four hours each weekend until the child begins kindergarten full time,” at which point overnight visitation would begin. Id. at 459. Though the father requested overnight visitation to begin immediately, the trial court denied his request, explaining that “it believed young children should not spend long periods and weekends with non-custodial parents…[b]ased on everything [the court] had read and talked to about child development experts…” Id. at 460.

The father appealed the trial court’s denial of additional visitation arguing that “the trial court is out of sync with current opinion about the need to establish a firm parental bond between a child and his or her non-custodial parent,” and referencing two models recommending “that children have more visitation time, including overnight visits, with non-custodial parents, beginning at an early age, and increasing as the child grows older.” Id. The Supreme Court of Georgia pointed out, however, “the record does not reflect that that these models were presented to the trial court; nor does it show that trial counsel made the argument which husband asserts on appeal.” Id. Thus, these arguments could not be relied upon on appeal. The father had to prove that the trial court abused its discretion in ruling on the evidence presented to it, and this the father could not do.

Recently, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the enforcement of a divorce settlement agreement over the wife/mother's objection. In that case, the father filed for divorce and sought legal and physical custody of the parties’ children. Martinez v. Martinez, 301 Ga. App. 330 (2009). While the divorce proceedings remained pending, the father filed a motion to enforce a settlement agreement. He contended that the parties had reached the agreement wherein he would be the primary custodial parent and the mother would have visitation rights. Id. The trial court granted the father’s motion and entered a “Final Order on Custody and Visitation” in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement. Id.

The mother appealed, alleging that the trial court erred in enforcing the settlement agreement “because she did not assent to the terms of the settlement and lacked capacity to contract at the time in question due to her medical condition,” and argued that the trial court “refused to receive any evidence from the parties” at the hearing on the father’s motion. Id. at 332. The mother’s allegations regarding evidence at the hearing, however, were disputed by the father and inconsistent with the trial court’s order on the motion. The Georgia Court of Appeals, therefore, affirmed, citing well established case law stating that “'[i]n order for the appellate court to determine whether the judgment appealed from was erroneous, it is the duty of the appellant to include in the record those items which will enable the appellate court to perform an objective review of the evidence and proceedings.'" Atwood v. Southeast Bedding Co., 236 Ga. App. 116 (1) (511 S.E.2d 232) (1999). Id. at 332-333. Further, "'where the proof necessary for determination of the issues on appeal is omitted from the record, an appellate court must assume that the judgment below was correct and affirm.'" Enchanted Valley RV Park Resort v. Weese, 241 Ga. App. 415, 417 (1) (c) (526 SE2d 124) (1999). Id. Because there was no transcript or other evidence in the record on appeal, the Georgia Court of Appeals was bound to presume that the trial court was correct.

A decision of a Fulton County judge regarding jurisdiction in a custody modification case was recently overturned in Murillo v. Murillo, 360 Ga. App. 61 (2009). A husband and wife were divorced in Fulton County in 1997 and the wife was granted custody of the parties’ child. Id. at 62. In 2002, the wife moved with the child to North Carolina. In 2008, pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”), the husband filed a Petition to Modify Custody in Fulton County Superior Court. Id. The trial court then granted the wife’s motion asking the court to decline jurisdiction as North Carolina was the more convenient forum for the proceeding. Id.

Generally, since Fulton County was the court that entered the original custody ruling, Fulton County had “exclusive, continuing jurisdiction” over the modification action unless the court determines that it determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum. OCGA §19-9-67. To make that determination, OCGA §19-9-67(b) requires the court to consider all of the following factors:

(1) Whether family violence has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which state could best protect the parties and the child;
(2) The length of time the child has resided outside this state;
(3) The distance between the court in this state and the court in the state that would assume jurisdiction;
(4) The relative financial circumstances of the parties;
(5) Any agreement of the parties as to which state should assume jurisdiction;
(6) The nature and location of the evidence required to resolve the pending litigation, including testimony of the child;
(7) The ability of the court of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the evidence; and
(8) The familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues in the pending litigation.

In vacating the decision of the Fulton County court, the Court of Appeals did not say that the end result was incorrect per se, but rather emphasized that the court did not consider and reference ALL of the required factors in its written Order in making its decision that it was no longer a convenient forum. Id. at 64. Thus, the Court of Appeals directed the trial courts to always consider ALL of the factors in making a jurisdiction decision.

The Court of Appeals recently emphasized the due process required before incarcerating a person for contempt of a divorce decree. In Bauman v. Humphries, according to the parties’ divorce decree, the wife was required to enroll the minor children in private school and pay all associated expenses. Bauman v. Humphries, 300 Ga. App. 263 (2009). Following a hearing, the trial court found the wife in willful contempt of this provision of the divorce decree, but gave her the opportunity to purge herself of the contempt by enrolling the children at the specified school by a specified date. Id. If the wife failed to purge herself, she was to be incarcerated until she complied. Id. at 264. Shortly thereafter, the husband’s attorney sent a letter to the court alleging that the wife failed to comply by the specified date and included a proposed order for incarceration, which the trial court signed. Id.

Upon appeal by the wife, the Court of Appeals reversed, relying on well-settled Supreme Court of Georgia rulings and stating that "in Georgia, a trial court cannot order incarceration pursuant to a self-effectuating order, regarding future acts, without benefit of a hearing." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Smith v. Smith, 280 Ga. 620, 621 (632 SE2d 83) (2006). The Court went on to state that even when a hearing has been held adjudging a person in contempt, the trial court cannot sign an order of incarceration based upon a letter from an interested individual. Bauman at 264. The Court of Appeals quoted the Supreme Court of Georgia, which held that “the court may only act, at a minimum, on an ‘affidavit . . . from a neutral and disinterested court official or other officer based upon objective information.’” Hall v. Doyle-Hall, 284 Ga. 325, 326 (667 SE2d 81) (2008).

The Georgia Supreme Court recently affirmed the Court of Appeals’ reversal of an alimony award as contrary to the evidence presented at trial. Coker v. Coker, 286 Ga. 20 (2009). The parties were married for approximately 24 years and had no children together. The only marital asset was a house. In addition, the husband had a separate asset, an interest in an LLC, which was worth approximately $100,000, but could not be converted to cash. Id. at 20, 21. The wife’s income was $45,000 and the husband’s income at the time of trial was $500/week, though the trial court determined his annual income to be $30,000. Id. Despite the husband’s meager income and assets, the trial court awarded the wife lump sum alimony in the amount of $36,500, which was to be paid within 3 months of the final decree of divorce. Id.

Generally, alimony is to be awarded based upon the needs of the party to whom it is awarded and the ability of the other party to pay. OCGA § 19-6-1 (c). In determining whether alimony should be awarded, and the amount thereof, the court looks at many factors, including the separate assets of each party and their earning capacities. OCGA § 19-6-1 (a). The Supreme Court acknowledged that the wife’s anticipated expenses justified her need for alimony, but stated that “the record is completely devoid of any evidence of Husband's ability to pay the trial court's lump sum alimony award.” Id. at 22. Without that evidence, the award must be reversed.

On February 9, 2009, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the Gwinnett county juvenile court’s finding that a child was deprived under O.C.G.A. §15-11-2(8)(A), reaffirming the standard that a juvenile court’s ruling will stand if it was supported by clear and convincing evidence. In In the Interest of J.S. (A08A1993), a mother appealed the deprivation ruling, arguing that there was insufficient evidence. The Court of Appeals rejected the mother’s claim, since the evidence suggested that the mother had filed numerous unsubstantiated claims of sexual abuse against the father and a young boy at a homeless shelter where the mother and child were living. The Court held that evidence of “repeated unfounded investigations of sexual abuse” has been held to be sufficient evidence of deprivation, and that the evidence in this case authorized the juvenile court to find by clear and convincing evidence that the child was deprived.

On February 9, 2009, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the Gwinnett county juvenile court’s finding that a child was deprived under O.C.G.A. §15-11-2(8)(A), reaffirming the standard that a juvenile court’s ruling will stand if it was supported by clear and convincing evidence. In In the Interest of J.S. (A08A1993), a mother appealed the deprivation ruling, arguing that there was insufficient evidence. The Court of Appeals rejected the mother’s claim, since the evidence suggested that the mother had filed numerous unsubstantiated claims of sexual abuse against the father and a young boy at a homeless shelter where the mother and child were living. The Court held that evidence of “repeated unfounded investigations of sexual abuse” has been held to be sufficient evidence of deprivation, and that the evidence in this case authorized the juvenile court to find by clear and convincing evidence that the child was deprived.

If you are unhappy with the Judge’s Order, you have a very short period of time in which to act and a limited number of options. Your options include filing a Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment or for New Trial within thirty (30) days of the Order, or appealing the court's decision to the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court of Georgia.

If you wish to file a divorce appeal to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court of Georgia, it is important to contact an attorney as soon as possible as there are strict filing deadlines which, depending on your case, can range from ten (10) days to thirty (30) days from the date of the Final Decree. Failure to file one of these pleadings before the deadline causes your right to appeal to be permanently lost.

Our attorneys can help you determine if you have grounds to appeal the Final Order, which could include an abuse of discretion by the trial court. Appeals can be complex so it is important to provide ample time to an attorney to evaluate your appeal and to prepare the necessary paperwork before the deadline.

On December 1, 2008, in In the Interest of A.R., the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the deprivation ruling of the juvenile court over the Father’s challenge of the sufficiency of evidence and admission of evidence. The Father contended that the juvenile court erred in finding the children deprived, since there was no evidence that he was the person who hurt the children. The Court of Appeals disagreed, referring to evidence that the children were injured and became developmentally delayed while in the Father’s care, and the fact that the Father’s incarceration rendered him unable to comply with the reunification plan.

The Father further challenged the admissibility of certain testimony and documentary evidence, but failed to provide support for his appeal of these issues or to show how the admissibility was reversible. In its holdings, the Court of Appeals implicitly stressed the importance of being specific in how and why the lower court erred, which is a guideline all parties should follow in appeals.