Atlanta Divorce Attorney Blog

In yet another celebrity family law case that has made national news, country singer Mindy McCready has found herself in the middle of a custody dispute with her mother. Mindy McCready’s son found in Arkansas, CNN.com, December 3, 2011. Due to McCready’s troubled past, the singer’s mother has custody of her 5-year-old son and McCready has visitation rights. Last week, McCready unlawfully took her son from her mother’s home claiming he was not safe there, and asked a court to restore custody to her, all the while refusing to travel back to Florida per a Judge’s order. Authorities recently found McCready and her son in Arkansas, and her son will be returned to McCready’s mother in Florida.

Though this case is not in Georgia, it sets a good example of what not to do when you are seeking a custody modification (which is presumably what McCready was trying to do). If there is a custody order in place, you must follow that order, until there is another order replacing it. If you feel your child is in danger under the current custody arrangement, you can file an emergency petition for modification of custody, which will be heard more quickly, or you can seek the help of law enforcement, if necessary. Taking matters into your own hands usually only makes things worse. Remember, the judge will always be looking at the best interest of your children. McCready likely made things much worse for herself by acting above the law and taking her son without first going through the court system, as these actions will be considered by the judge in the custody modification action.

According to TMZ.com**, Usher Raymond’s ex-wife has filed actions for modification of child support and modification of custody/contempt against the singer in Atlanta, Georgia. Usher’s Ex-Wife: You Don’t Deserve Our Kids, TMZ.com, November 29, 2011.

In the child support modification action, Ms. Raymond is claiming that Usher has continued to have financial success since their divorce and she should, therefore, get an upward modification of child support. In Georgia, if she can prove that there has been a substantial change in his income, specifically that he is making significantly more money now, she will likely get the upward modification she is seeking. This assumes there are no other factors at play.

In the custody modification action, which seems to include contempt claims, Ms. Raymond is claiming that: (1) Usher has failed to obtain the required permission from her to travel out of state with the children; (2) Usher has failed to get her approval before hiring nannies, as required; (3) Usher has failed to give her the first chance to watch the children when he is away for an extended time, as required; (4) Usher failed to allow her to have the children for 2-weeks in the summer of 2011, as required; and (5)Usher refused to let her have custody of the children during winter break in 2010, as required. In Georgia, to obtain a custody modification, Ms, Raymond must prove that there has been a substantial change affecting the best interests of the children. The judge will weigh all relevant factors and may appoint a guardian ad litem to do a custody evaluation if the parties are unable to come to an agreement. If the parties are unable to come to an agreement, this case could go on for a long time as a full custody investigation and evaluation will likely be completed. It should be noted that, if these claims are filed as a contempt action rather than a custody modification action, the judge cannot change custody in a contempt action. Thus, Ms. Raymond will have to file a separate petition for modification of custody.

**The facts reported in the blog are based solely on the article cited above. The author is not involved in the case.

With the holiday season upon us, many divorced parents in Georgia will look to their parenting plan for guidance on arranging their holiday schedules. Parenting plans are custody agreements that are submitted jointly or individually by each party in an action that involves child custody in Georgia. Except in those cases where emergency relief is necessary due to family violence, parenting plans are required in all actions in Georgia where child custody is at issue.

A parenting plan may be temporary until a final decree is entered, at which time a permanent parenting plan will go into effect. Under Georgia law, when considering either a joint plan or opposing plans of the parties, the court must make its determination based upon the best interest of the child. O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3. The court bases its determination on a number of factors including, but not limited to, the relationship that exists between each parent and the child, and the ability of each parent to provide the child with basic necessities. Id. at a(3).

Parenting plans require that both parties acknowledge and decide on a variety of issues. O.C.G.A. § 19-9-1. Holiday visitation is one such issue, and it can be difficult and emotional for parties to come to an agreement because it requires each party to agree to some holidays away from their children. It may never be easy to split time with your child and the other parent, but a successful parenting plan can alleviate tensions between the parties and allow each parent to enjoy time with their child.

If you need help creating a parenting plan, or seek to modify your existing parenting plan, please contact our Atlanta divorce attorneys to assist you in the process.

By Courtney Carpenter, Associate Attorney, Meriwether & Tharp LLC

The Court of Appeals of Georgia recently affirmed a modification of visitation over the appeal by the father/primary custodian. Blackmore v. Blackmore, A11A1277 (2011). In that case, the parties shared joint legal custody of their two children with the father having primary physical custody. Id. at 2. The mother later filed a Petition to Modify Visitation, seeking “more visitation and primary decision-making authority over healthcare issues and the children’s extracurricular activities.” Id. At the recommendation of the guardian ad litem and custody evaluator, the trial court at first limited the mother’s visitation and required that it be supervised. Id. at 3. However, at the final hearing, the trial court removed the visitation restrictions and granted the mother more visitation, while keeping the father as the primary physical custodian. Id. The trial court also “ordered that each parent would make decisions regarding the day-to-day care of the children...while the children were residing with that parent." Id.

The father appealed arguing, among other things, “that the court’s final order amounted to a de facto change in custody, which was impermissible because there were no changes in material circumstances.” Id. at 8. The Court of Appeals of Georgia disagreed with the father, holding that, though “[i]t is true that a trial court may not indirectly change custody by modifying the visitation schedule,” there was no such change in this case. Id. at 9, citing Martin v. Buglioli, 185 Ga. App. 702, 703 (1988); Bullington v. Bullington, 181 Ga. App. 256, 257 (2) (1986). The Court emphasized that the increased visitation provided to the mother/non-custodial parent does not exceed the time of custody provided to the father/custodial parent. Id. at 10. Thus, the increase in visitation time, even when combined with the day-to-day decision making, does not amount to a de facto change in custody. Id.

In Georgia, child custody is determined using the “best interests of the child” standard. OCGA §19-9-3(a)(2). In custody cases where the child is under the age of 11, the court is not required to consider the child’s desires in determining which parent will have custody.

In custody cases where the child is 11, 12 or 13 years of age, “the judge shall consider the desires and educational needs of the child in determining which parent shall have custody.” OCGA §19-9-3(a)(6). The judge still has complete discretion in making the custody determination and, though he must consider the child’s desires, “the child’s desires shall not be controlling.” Id. The determination is still based upon best interests of the child and the child’s desires are a factor to be considered in making this determination.

In custody cases where the child is 14 years of age or older, “the child shall have the right to select the parent with whom he or she desires to live.” OCGA §19-9-3(a)(5). The custody selection made by a child in this age group “shall be presumptive unless the parent so selected is determined not to be in the best interests of the child.” Id. Thus, the court will follow the election of the child, unless that election is not in the child’s best interest.

Georgia divorce attorneys are often asked whether a parent’s line of work can impact child custody. In Georgia, child custody is determined using the “best interests of the child” standard. OCGA §19-9-3(a)(2). In determining the best interests of the child, ”the judge may consider any relevant factor.” OCGA §19-9-3(a)(3). This means that anything and everything may impact a custody determination, including a parent’s employment. For example, if you are a truck driver traveling 5 days a week, then it is not practical for you to be the primary physical custodian because you are not home most of the time. This factor will be weighed with all other factors in the determination of custody.

The Court of Appeals of Georgia recently heard an interesting, though extremely sad, child custody case out of Fulton County. In that case, the paternal grandparents sought custody of the two minor children after the father was brutally murdered, allegedly by the mother. Scott v. Scott, A11A1206 (2011). After the mother’s murder trial resulted in a hung jury, she filed a motion to dismiss the grandparents’ custody petition for failure to state a claim. Id. at 2. The grandparents responded that they filed the original petition because, had the mother been convicted, “the children would be without parental care and control.” Id. at 3. The trial court granted the mother’s motion to dismiss, concluding that the grandparents failed to show “by clear and convincing evidence that parental custody would harm the child and that the award of custody to the parent is not in the best interest of the child.” Id. at 4.

The Georgia Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that “[i]f, within the framework of the complaint, evidence may be introduced which will sustain a grant of relief to the plaintiff, the complaint is sufficient” to withstand a motion to dismiss. Id. at 5; citing Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fowler, 177 Ga. App. 834 (1986). Since the petition “gave fair notice that they sought custody of the child under OCGA §19-7-1(b.1) and 19-9-2 based upon the mother’s alleged murder of the father,” it was sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. Id. at 5. It should be noted that this does not mean that the grandparents would necessarily win custody, but they will be given an opportunity to present their case. Since the burden to prove parental fitness is lower than the burden required to prove murder, they may be able to prove the mother unfit even though she was not convicted of the murder.

The Supreme Court of Georgia recently reversed a trial court’s ruling that a Husband had waived his right to seek a modification of his child support obligation below a specified floor. Dean v. Dean, S11A0739 (2011). In that case, the parties’ settlement agreement provided a monthly child support amount, but stated that “Husband’s child support payment would be recalculated soon after the start of each year” and that “[i]n no event shall the annual recalculation of Husband’s child support result in him paying less” that the original amount stated in the settlement agreement. Id. at 1-2.

After the Husband lost his job, he filed a petition for downward modification of child support. Id. at 2. The trial court held that the Husband did not waive his right to modify his child support obligation, but the obligation could not be reduced below the floor set by the settlement agreement. Id.

The Husband appealed and the Supreme Court of Georgia agreed, emphasizing the “straightforward rule that parties to an alimony [or child support] agreement may obtain modification unless the agreement expressly waives the right of modification by referring specifically to that right; the right to modification will be waived by agreement of the parties only in very clear waiver language which refers to the right of modification.” Id. at 1, citing Varn v. Varn, 242 Ga. 309, 311 (1978). Here, there was no express mention of a “waiver,” nor is there any “express reference to the right of alimony modification.” Id. at 3-4. Not allowing the Husband to modify below a certain floor was essentially unlawfully limiting his right to modify. The Supreme Court of Georgia, thus, found that this case required reversal.

Our Atlanta divorce attorneys have recently learned of some interactive websites that may be helpful for parents sharing custody of their children in Georgia. In particular, these websites are a helpful resource for parents who are struggling to communicate effectively or just need help staying organized.

OurFamilyWizard.com, JointParents.com and ParentingTime.net offer a range of features such as a visitation calendar, an expense log, daily journal, photo sharing, and a messaging forum. Visitation calendars allow parents to easily see who has visitation and the children's schedule. The expense log tracks who incurred an expense, the type of expense, the other parent's share, and whether that expense has been paid. Journals, photo sharing, and messaging forums provide a space for parents to communicate to each other about their children's activities, progress in school, etc. All calendars, expenses, photos and messages can be kept and recorded for future reference and may be helpful if there is future litigation. Some of the websites, like OurFamilyWizard.com, provide free professional or third party accounts for attorneys, counselors, teachers, or grandparents.

By Emily Yu, Associate Attorney, Meriwether & Tharp LLC

There was recently a new article on ajc.com about the lawsuit against NFL receiver Terrell Owens in Fulton County for failure to pay child support. Lawyer: T.O. could face jail for failure to pay child support, by Christian Boone, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, September 8, 2011. As mentioned in my previous blog on the subject, one possible punishment for the willful failure to pay child support is incarceration – and it looks like the plaintiff’s lawyer has petitioned the trial court for just that. According to the article, the original contempt petition for June and July child support payments was withdrawn after the full amounts were paid. However, now Owens appears to have failed to pay support for August or September, which is the subject of the current lawsuit.

The plaintiff’s attorney says that Owens has given no reason for his refusal to pay. The article further states that, though he is not currently signed by any NFL team, he is starring in a reality television show and his estimated monthly income is $666,000. If this is true, he should be able to afford the $5,000 child support payments. The case is currently pending, and a judge will decide whether to jail Owens or force him to make all back payments along with attorney’s fees.

In Georgia, in addition to alimony being subject to modification due to a change in the income and financial status of either former spouse, cohabitation by the payee is also grounds for modification. Georgia law states “the voluntary cohabitation of such former spouse with a third party in a meretricious relationship shall also be grounds to modify provisions made for periodic payments of permanent alimony for the support of a former spouse.” OCGA §19-6-19(b). Cohabitation is specifically defined as “dwelling together continuously and openly in a meretricious relationship with another person, regardless of the sex of the other person.” Id. Thus, for example, if an alimony payee/former wife is cohabitating with a new boyfriend, the payor/former husband may seek to modify and/or eliminate his alimony obligation under this law.

Though this is a fairly black and white rule, it should be noted that if the petitioner is unable to prove his/her case under these grounds, he/she “shall be liable for reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by the respondent for defense of the action.” Id. Thus, it is best to make sure your former spouse is actually cohabitating, and that you will be able to prove it, before bringing a modification action under this ground.

In Georgia, a judgment for permanent alimony for the support of a spouse “shall be subject to revision upon petition filed by either former spouse showing a change in the income and financial status of either former spouse.” OCGA §19-6-19(a). For example, if the alimony payor loses his job, he may seek a downward modification based upon his decrease in income. In addition, if the alimony payee suddenly receives a large sum of money, through inheritance for example, the payor may seek to modify based upon this change in financial status. Conversely, the payee may seek upward modification if the payor’s income increases or if the payee’s income decreases.

Like child support modifications, no petition for alimony modification may be filed “within a period of two years from the date of the final order on a previous petition by the same former spouse.” Id. It should also be noted that a petition for modification of alimony can only be filed in cases of “weekly, monthly, annual, or similar periodic payments.” OCGA §19-6-21. Lump sum alimony cannot be modified. Id.

Last week, I discussed the Gottschalk case, where the father appealed several aspects of the Georgia trial court’s order for supervised visitation. Gottschalk v. Gottschalk, A11A0565 (2011). As mentioned, several of the father’s allegations of error were based upon the trial court’s order prohibiting dissemination of the custody evaluation. After alleging that the trial court erred in prohibiting the parties from showing the custody evaluation to their expert witnesses, the father then contended that, “regardless of the language in the orders about the custody evaluator’s report, prohibiting [the father’s] expert from testifying about the report denied [the father] his due process rights,” because the guardian relied on the report in making custody recommendations. Id. at 18.

The Georgia Court of Appeals rejected this allegation, holding that the father “had notice that the custody evaluator’s report was not to be distributed without permission of the court,” and did not avail himself of the option to obtain the court’s permission that would have allowed him to use the report. Id. at 19. In addition, the mother did not have notice that this expert would be called and moved to exclude his testimony altogether, but the court allowed the father to call the witness. Id. at 20. Thus, his due process rights were not denied. As mentioned in the previous blog, if the father had obtained permission for his expert to review and testify to the custody evaluation, as he had done with other witnesses, his expert would have been able to testify about it and he would have nothing about which to complain.

The Georgia Court of Appeals recently upheld an order for supervised visitation, despite the father's allegations of 17 errors by the trial court. Gottschalk v. Gottschalk, A11A0565 (2011). In that case, the parties consented to joint legal and physical custody of their children in their divorce action, with detailed visitation provisions in the final decree. Id. at 3. About a year later, after the father’s arrest, the mother filed a petition seeking supervised visitation for the father. Id. The trial court appointed a custody evaluator, who was to write a report to be distributed ONLY to the court, guardian ad litem and the parties, except upon the court’s express permission otherwise. Id. at 4. During the hearing, the trial court discovered that the father’s expert witness had received a copy of the custody evaluation, and barred the expert from testifying about it since the father had not received express permission to disclose it to him. Id. at 7. The trial court ultimately granted the petition for supervised visitation, holding, with significant factual support, that the father’s “conduct was potentially dangerous for the children.” Id. at 9. After the father’s motion for a new trial was denied, he appealed.

Several of the father’s allegations of error were based upon the trial court’s order prohibiting dissemination of the custody evaluation. In one enumeration of error, he alleges “the trial court erred in interpreting the court’s prior orders as forbidding the parties from allowing their expert witnesses to review the custody evaluator’s report to testify about problems with the methodology used.” Id. at 17-18. The Georgia Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that the orders were “very clear that the report could be disseminated only to the parties, attorneys, and guardian unless otherwise allowed by the court,” and the language “is not susceptible to any other interpretation.” Id. The Court of Appeals also pointed out that parties consented to the order, and “both sides had previously sought and obtained permission to reveal the contents for the report to specific people.” Id. Thus, the Court was not at all sympathetic to this allegation. If the father had just gone through the proper procedure, his expert likely would have been permitted to review the report and testify about it.

The Georgia Court of Appeals recently re-emphasized long standing Georgia case law that prohibits custody from being modified in a contempt action. Coker v. Moemeka, A11A0005 (2011). In that case, the father filed a contempt action against the mother. Shortly before the court was scheduled to hear the case, the father filed a motion for change of custody, which the trial court granted at the hearing, along with the father’s contempt petition. Id. at 4.

The mother appealed, alleging that she was not properly served, and because the father improperly added the custody issue to the contempt proceeding. Id. at 5. As to the custody issue, the Court of Appeals agreed with the mother. Georgia case law clearly states that “[i]n a contempt proceeding, the trial court does not have authority to modify a final order of custody, which must be brought as a separate action.” Id. at 6, quoting McCall v. McCall, 246 Ga. App. 770, 772 (1) (542 SE2d 168) (2000). Since this was a question of law, rather than fact, the Court owed no deference to the trial court’s ruling and vacated the custody order as plain legal error by the trial court. Coker, at 5.

A Georgia mother recently lost primary physical custody of her child when the court found that her planned move to New York was not in the child's best interest. In that case, shortly after their divorce in which the Mother received primary physical custody of the parties’ child, the Mother notified the Father that she planned to move with the child to New York. Gallo v. Kofler, S11A0185 (2011). The Father filed a Petition for Modification of Custody and, after a hearing, the trial court issued an order giving the Father primary physical custody. Id. The Mother appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in modifying custody solely because of her planned move. Id.

The Supreme Court of Georgia disagreed with the Mother. Generally, in looking at a possible custody change, the trial court must be guided by the best interests of the child. Id. Though “self-executing change of custody provisions that would automatically change custody to a non-custodial parent in the event that the custodial parent moved to another location at some point in the future are invalid,” that does not mean that the trial court is required to wait until the Mother moved to New York to determine whether a modification of custody was in the child’s best interest. Id. at 3. There was evidence at the hearing that “the child had been thriving in Georgia,” the child would have a better quality of life in Georgia than in New York, the child’s relationship with the Father could be harmed by a move, and the Mother was financially instable. Id. at 3-4. The Supreme Court of Georgia found this evidence to sufficiently support the trial court’s decision to change physical custody to the father. Id. at 4.

The Supreme Court of Georgia recently reversed a trial court's decision regarding a restriction on overnight guests during a parent's visitation time. Ward v. Ward, S11A0437 (2011). In that case, the parties’ Final Judgment and Decree of Divorce awarded primary physical custody of the children to the father, with the mother receiving substantial visitation. Id. About a year after the divorce, the parties each filed modification actions and the divorce decree was amended to include a visitation provision providing that the mother “shall not have any overnight male guests while the minor children are present.” Id.

The mother appealed, arguing that the amended visitation provision was overbroad, and the Supreme Court of Georgia agreed. Id. at 2. Presumably, this provision was included to prohibit the mother from having a boyfriend spend the night, but the Court was moved by the mother’s argument that, as written, the provision “prohibits her from having her father, a brother, a new spouse, or even the children’s father spend the night at her house while the minor children are present.” Id. Generally, “a trial court has discretion to place restrictions on custodial parents’ behavior that will harm their children,” but here, the restriction prohibits the mother from having non-romantic male visitors, which were not shown to be harmful to the children. Id. at 3. Thus, the Supreme Court of Georgia held that the trial court abused its discretion in amending the divorce decree in this manner.

Provisions such as the one addressed in this case are fairly common in divorce decrees. A better way to write this provision would be that the mother shall not have any overnight male guest that is not related by blood or marriage while the minor children are present.

In addition to addressing the final decision making issue in Avren v. Garten, the Supreme Court of Georgia also addressed the trial court’s dismissal of the mother’s petitions for contempt, and modification of custody, child support and visitation. Avren v. Garten, S11A0064 (2011). The mother contended that the trial court erred in dismissing these actions. Id. at 3.

The Supreme Court of Georgia disagreed with the mother, holding that the mother’s petitions for modification of custody, modification of visitation, and her petition for contempt were properly dismissed pursuant to OCGA §19-9-24(b), which “prohibits a legal guardian from bringing an action for modification of child custody or visitation rights or any application for contempt of court so long as visitation rights are withheld by the legal guardian in violation of the custody order.” Id. at 4. In this case, there was overwhelming evidence that the mother had left the house with the child on scheduled visitation days during the time in which the father was to pick up the child. Id. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court of Georgia held that the trial court did not err when it dismissed these actions. Id. at 5.

The Supreme Court of Georgia also held that the mother’s petition for modification of child support was properly dismissed due to the “two-year rule.” This rule provides that “[n]o petition to modify child support may be filed by either parent within a period of two years from the date of the final order on a previous petition to modify by the same parent.” OCGA §19-6-15(k)(2). In this case, the mother filed the current petition only 11 months after her previous petition for modification of child support. Id. at 6. Since it had been less than two years, the mother's petition was properly dismissed. Id. at 7.

If you are considering appealing a Georgia custody order, it is important to consider the timing of your appeal. In a recent custody modification case, the trial court modified the parties’ divorce decree, changing custody from the mother to the father and ordering the mother to commence paying child support. Francis-Rolle v. Harvey, A11A0357 (2011). The mother appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in granting custody of the parties’ 17-year-old child to the father. Id.

Shortly after the appeal was docketed, the child turned 18 years of age. Id. at 2. The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed the mother’s appeal of the custody order as moot since “at 18 years of age the child has reached the age of legal majority and is no longer subject to the custody order.” Id.

Though it is understandable that the mother was upset about the outcome of the custody modification case, her attorney should have advised her that her time and money would have been better spent on the other issues she raised on appeal.

The Supreme Court of Georgia recently clarified the meaning of "attends school" as it relates to child support obligations. Draughn v. Draughn, S10A1599 (2011). In that case, the parties’ divorce decree stated that the father was to pay child support until the child “reaches the age of eighteen…; provided that if [the child] becomes eighteen years old while enrolled in and attending a secondary school on a full time basis, then the child support shall continue for [said child] until he has graduated from secondary school or reaches the age of twenty, whichever comes first.” Id. Shortly before the child turned 18, he stopped attending private high school and enrolled in an online high school equivalency program, but he failed to complete the online program and did not graduate. Id. at 2. After the father subsequently stopped paying child support, the mother filed a motion for contempt.

An issue addressed by the Supreme Court of Georgia on appeal was whether online schooling satisfies the requirement that the child “attends” a secondary school. The trial court found that online classes were not considered to be “attending school”, but the Supreme Court of Georgia disagreed. (Interestingly, the trial court did not base its contempt judgment on this finding, but the Supreme Court of Georgia was concerned as to whether the trial court’s assertion was correct and, therefore, asked the parties to address the issue so it could rule.)

The Supreme Court of Georgia unequivocally held that “once a child enrolls in approved online courses in an effort to graduate from secondary school, his online attendance constitutes 'attending school' for purposes of extending child support beyond the child’s attainment of the age of majority.” Id. at 4-5. The Court based its ruling on the state government’s endorsement and regulation of online learning opportunities. In doing so, the Court is keeping up with the realities of the digital age and allowing children to participate in alternative forms of education.

The Supreme Court of Georgia recently vacated a child support order that had an unsupported deviation. Stowell v. Huguenard, S10A1700 (2011). In that case, the father filed a motion to modify his child support and alimony obligation after a substantial change in his employment. After a trial, the court reduced the father’s child support obligation to $981.25 per month plus “an annual payment of 25% of any gross commissions or other irregular income received above his $3500 monthly base salary.” Id. at 1. The father appealed, alleging that Georgia law did not support the additional 25%. The Supreme Court of Georgia agreed with the father.

In general, child support is computed using both parents’ gross incomes to get the presumptive amount of child support, and then adding to or subtracting from this amount using deviations that serve the best interests of the child. OCGA §19-6-15. Click here for a more detailed analysis of how child support is computed.

In this case, there was no question that the father’s child support obligation of $981.25 per month was correct given the parties’ respective incomes. However, the child support worksheet “contains no reference to the trial court’s requirement that [the father] pay 25% of any income over his base salary of $3500 every month” as required. Id. at 4. In addition, “the trial court declared on the worksheet that there were no deviations to the presumptive child support amounts.” Id. at 5. The 25% was addressed as a provision in the modification order, but the order lacked “the written findings or special interrogatory findings that an amount of child support other than the amount calculated is reasonably necessary.” Id. The Georgia Supreme Court held that “the trial court’s requirement that [the father] pay 25% of any income above his monthly base salary of $3500 results in a deviation from the presumptive amount of child support set forth by the child support guidelines” and, since this deviation was not support buy written findings or entered on the child support worksheet, the modification order must be vacated. Id. at 11-12.

Any case in Georgia involving child custody must have a formal parenting plan incorporated into the final decree. OCGA §19-9-1. In addition to the general acknowledgments discussed in the previous blog, there are also several specific things that must be included in the parenting plan:

(A) Where and when a child will be in each parent’s physical care, designating where the child will spend each day of the year;

(B) How holidays, birthdays, vacations, school breaks, and other special occasions will be spent with each parent including the time of day that each event will begin and end;

(C) Transportation arrangements including how the child will be exchanged between the parents, the location of the exchange, how the transportation costs will be paid, and any other matter relating to the child spending time with each parent;

(D) Whether supervision will be needed for any parenting time and, if so, the particulars of the supervision;

(E) An allocation of decision-making authority to one or both of the parents with regard to the child's education, health, extracurricular activities, and religious upbringing, and if the parents agree the matters should be jointly decided, how to resolve a situation in which the parents disagree on resolution; and

(F) What, if any, limitations will exist while one parent has physical custody of the child in terms of the other parent contacting the child and the other parent's right to access education, health, extracurricular activity, and religious information regarding the child.

OCGA §19-9-1(b)(2)(A)-(F). These items give specific guidance to parents as to all the details surrounding custody and visitation in an effort to eliminate confusion or disagreements.

Ideally, the parents will work together to come up with a parenting plan that addresses their unique situation. However, if the parents are unable to agree, each party shall file a proposed parenting plan with the judge, who will make the ultimate decision considering both proposals and the best interests of the child. OCGA §19-9-1(c).

The court can deviate from the presumptive child support amount calculated by the child support worksheets for several reasons, IF the child support deviation is in the best interest of the child(ren) for whom child support is being determined. OCGA §19-6-15(i)(1)(A). The final deviation category under the statute is nonspecific deviation. OCGA §19-6-15(i)(3).

The nonspecific deviation category is a catch-all deviation, included to cover specific situations that may not have been contemplated by the Legislature. Specifically, the statute says that a deviation “may be appropriate for reasons in addition to those established under this subsection.” Id. Every family situation is unique and what applies in one family may not apply in another. This deviation gives a parent the ability to ask for a deviation for any reason, but the deviation may only be granted “when the court or the jury finds it is in the best interest of the child.” Id.

The court can deviate from the presumptive child support amount calculated by the child support worksheets for several reasons, IF the child support deviation is in the best interest of the child(ren) for whom child support is being determined. OCGA §19-6-15(i)(1)(A). The tenth deviation category under the statute is parenting time. OCGA §19-6-15(i)(2)(K).

Generally, the Georgia child support guidelines are “based upon expenditures for a child in intact households.” OCGA §19-6-15(i)(2)(K)(i). Since, after a divorce, a child is spending time in two households, the presumptive amount of child support may not be appropriate. The court may order a parenting time deviation “when special circumstances make the presumptive amount of child support excessive or inadequate due to extended parenting time as set forth in the order of visitation or when the child resides with both parents equally.” Id. If the child resides with both parents equally, for example, the parent designated as the non-custodial parent may request a downward deviation in his/her child support obligation so that he/she has sufficient funds to spend on the child during the extended time the child is residing with him/her.

It should be noted that a claim for a parenting time deviation may only be between the custodial and non-custodial parent, not any third parties. OCGA §19-6-15(i)(2)(K)(iii).

The court can deviate from the presumptive child support amount calculated by the child support worksheets for several reasons, IF the child support deviation is in the best interest of the child(ren) for whom child support is being determined. OCGA §19-6-15(i)(1)(A). The tenth deviation category under the statute is extraordinary expenses. OCGA §19-6-15(i)(2)(J). Generally, child support is based upon “average child expenses for families given the parents’ combined adjusted income and number of children.” Id. The legislature recognized that expenses for children are highly variable and, thus, included this deviation so that these expenses may be considered on a case-by-case basis. Id. If extraordinary expenses are found, they “shall be prorated between the parents by assigning or deducting credit for actual payments” made for these extraordinary expenses. Id.

There are three types of extraordinary expenses that may be considered:

1. Extraordinary educational expenses – Includes tuition, room and board, lab fees, books, fees, and other reasonable and necessary expenses associated with education OCGA §19-6-15(i)(2)(J)(i). Expenses must be “appropriate to the parent’s financial abilities and to the lifestyle of the child if the parents and the child were living together.” Id.

2. Special expenses incurred for child rearing – Includes summer camp, music/art lessons, extracurricular activities. The basic child support obligation covers average amounts for these expenses, but “when these special expenses exceed 7 percent of the basic child support obligation, then the additional amount of special expenses shall be considered as a deviation to cover the full amount of the special expenses.” OCGA §19-6-15(i)(2)(J)(ii).

3. Extraordinary medical expenses – Includes medical expenses not covered by insurance that cause extreme economic hardship. OCGA §19-6-15(i)(2)(J)(iii).

Georgia courts can deviate from the presumptive child support amount calculated by the child support worksheets for several reasons, IF the child support deviation is in the best interest of the child(ren) for whom child support is being determined. OCGA §19-6-15(i)(1)(A). The ninth deviation category under the statute is Permanency Plan or Foster Care Plan. OCGA §19-6-15(i)(2)(I). This deviation may be considered when the child is in foster care.

Under this deviation, when the child is in the legal custody of a public or private child protection or foster care agency, the court can consider a deviation “if the deviation will assist in accomplishing a permanency plan or foster care plan for the child that has a goal of returning the child to the parent or parents and the parent’s need to establish an adequate household or to otherwise adequately prepare herself or himself for the return of the child clearly justifies a deviation for this purpose.” Id. For example, consider a situation where a child is in the custody of a state agency, and the parent is diligently working two jobs so that he/she can attain a stable residence for the child. The parent may be able to make ends meet, attain a stable residence and accomplish the goals necessary for return of the child to his/her custody, but only if he/she received a downward deviation in child support. In this situation, the court would look at the big picture and end goal, and may grant the deviation under the circumstances.

Georgia courts can deviate from the presumptive child support amount calculated by the child support worksheets for several reasons, IF the child support deviation is in the best interest of the child(ren) for whom child support is being determined. OCGA §19-6-15(i)(1)(A). The eighth deviation category under the statute is mortgage. OCGA §19-6-15(i)(2)(H). This deviation may be considered when the noncustodial parent/child support payor is providing a home for the child. Id.

Specifically, the court may consider a deviation where “the noncustodial parent is providing shelter, such as paying the mortgage of the home, or has provided a home at no cost to the custodial parent in which the child resides.” Id. For example, a noncustodial parent may own several properties, and allow the child and custodial parent to live in one of the properties in which the noncustodial parent does not live. Like many of the other deviations, in this situation, the parent is providing a benefit to the child in addition to his or her child support obligation and, therefore, may ask the court to pay less child support. With the mortgage deviation, the court may deviate by allocating the costs of the home between the parents, or decreasing the noncustodial parent’s child support obligation by “an amount equivalent to such [housing] costs." Id.

The court can deviate from the presumptive child support amount calculated by the child support worksheets for several reasons, IF the child support deviation is in the best interest of the child(ren) for whom child support is being determined. OCGA §19-6-15(i)(1)(A). The seventh deviation category under the statute is alimony. OCGA §19-6-15(i)(2)(G). This deviation may be considered when a parent is paying court ordered alimony.

Under the child support statute, “actual payments of alimony shall not be considered as a deduction from gross income.” Id. Rather than treating these payments as a deduction, the legislature decided to consider them "as a deviation from the presumptive amount of child support.” Id. Thus, it is not automatic that a parent will get this deviation. Unlike most of the other deviations, the court or jury must make written findings of its consideration of alimony payments as a basis for deviation. This means there must be written findings in the final order supporting the deviation.

The language "actual payments" infers that the alimony payments must actually be made. A court order for alimony payments that is not being complied with will not be sufficient.

The court can deviate from the presumptive child support amount calculated by the child support worksheets for several reasons, IF the child support deviation is in the best interest of the child(ren) for whom child support is being determined. OCGA §19-6-15(i)(1)(A). The sixth deviation category under the statute is travel expenses. OCGA §19-6-15(i)(2)(F). This deviation is included in the statute to cover a situation where the parents live in different cities or states and visitation related travel expenses are substantial for one or both parents.

If parents live in different cities or states, the logistics for visitation can be a little more complicated. If a plane flight is necessary, and the child is too young to fly alone, one parent must fly the child to and from visitation and, thus, there are round trip airline tickets on each end. Even if the distance can be travelled by car, gas has become increasingly expensive. If travel expenses for visitation are found to be substantial, “the court may order the allocation of such costs…by deviation from the presumptive amount of child support, taking into consideration the circumstances of the respective parents as well as which parent moved and the reason for such move.” Id. The court may be more likely to allow a deviation for a parent who moved due to a job or to be closer to family who could help with child care rather than a parent who moved away from his/her children to be closer to a new girlfriend/boyfriend.

The court can deviate from the presumptive child support amount calculated by the child support worksheets for several reasons, IF the child support deviation is in the best interest of the child(ren) for whom child support is being determined. OCGA §19-6-15(i)(1)(A). The fifth deviation category under the statute is child and dependent care tax credit. OCGA §19-6-15(i)(2)(E). This deviation is included in the statute consider a deviation where “one of the parents is entitled to the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit.” Id.

A “dependent” is defined as “[a] natural or legally adopted child of the taxpayer.” OCGA §48-7A-2(3). There is a specific schedule for the child and dependent care tax credit that is based upon income, and the tax credit is basically subtracted from the amount of taxes a person owes. OCGA §48-7A-3(b). A child can only be claimed as a dependent once. Thus, after a divorce, only one parent is entitled to this tax credit for each child. Generally, the parent who has primary physical custody is entitled to this credit, though the parties can negotiate this issue as part of their settlement discussions.

If a parent is entitled to this tax credit, the court “may deviate from the presumptive amount of child support in consideration of such credit.” OCGA §19-6-15(i)(2)(E).

The court can deviate from the presumptive child support amount calculated by the child support worksheets for several reasons, IF the child support deviation is in the best interest of the child(ren) for whom child support is being determined. OCGA §19-6-15(i)(1)(A). The fourth deviation category under the statute is life insurance. OCGA §19-6-15(i)(2)(D). This deviation is included in the statute to cover a situation in which “either parent has purchased life insurance on the life of either parent or the lives of both parents for the benefit of the child.” Id. The life insurance may be something the parents agreed upon in a settlement agreement, or it may be an order of the court.

This deviation is handled similarly to the “other health related insurance” deviation. If one parent has life insurance on either or both parents for the benefit of the child, the insurance premiums are an expense that parent is paying for the child’s benefit. That parent is, thus, paying child support and paying an additional amount in insurance premiums. The key here is that the life insurance must be on the life of either or both parents AND the child must be the beneficiary of the policy. In this situation, “the court may deviate from the presumptive amount of child support for the cost of such insurance by either adding or subtracting the amount of the premium.” Id.

The court can deviate from the presumptive child support amount calculated by the child support worksheets for several reasons, IF the child support deviation is in the best interest of the child(ren) for whom child support is being determined. OCGA §19-6-15(i)(1)(A). The third deviation category under the statute is other health related insurance. OCGA §19-6-15(i)(2)(C). This deviation is included in the statute to cover a situation in which a parent “has vision or dental insurance available at a reasonable cost for the child.” Id.

If the non-custodial parent has vision and/or dental insurance for the child, the insurance premiums are an expense that parent is paying for the benefit of the child. That parent is, thus, paying child support and paying an additional amount in insurance premiums. For example, consider a situation in which the presumptive amount of child support is $800 per month, and the noncustodial parent is paying an additional $100 per month in vision/dental insurance premiums for the child. This parent is essentially paying $900 per month for the child. This parent may request a downward child support deviation to make up this difference.

The court can deviate from the presumptive child support amount calculated by the child support worksheets for several reasons, IF the child support deviation is in the best interest of the child(ren) for whom child support is being determined. OCGA §19-6-15(i)(1)(A). The second deviation category under the statute is low income. OCGA §19-6-15(i)(2)(B). To obtain a deviation under this category, the parent “shall demonstrate no earning capacity or that his or her pro rata share of the presumptive amount of child support would create an extreme economic hardship for such parent.” OCGA §19-6-15(i)(2)(B)(i).

There are certain steps the court or jury must go through in considering a low-income deviation. First, the fact finder must “examine all attributable and excluded sources of income, assets and benefits available to the noncustodial parent” and ensure that the parent's expenses are justified and actually paid by that parent. OCGA §19-6-15(i)(2)(B)(ii). Then, the fact finder shall consider the income, assets, benefits and expenses of each parent, the hardship of a downward deviation on the custodial parent’s household, the needs of each parent and those of the children, and the ability of the noncustodial parent to pay child support. OCGA §19-6-15(i)(2)(B)(iii).

Even if a low-income deviation is granted, the minimum child support for one child “shall not be less than $100.00 per month” and this amount “shall be increased by at least $50.00 for each additional child.” OCGA §19-6-15(i)(2)(B)(v).

The court can deviate from the presumptive child support amount calculated by the child support worksheets for several reasons, IF the deviation is in the best interest of the child(ren) for whom child support is being determined. OCGA §19-6-15(i)(1)(A). The first deviation category under the statute is high income. OCGA §19-6-15(i)(2)(A). According to the statute, “parents are considered high-income parents if their combined adjusted income exceeds $30,000.00 per month.” Id. For parents who fall into this category, “the court shall set the basic child support obligation at the highest amount allowed by the child support obligation table.” Id. In addition, the court or jury has the option to consider an upward deviation to reach an appropriate award of child support “which is consistent with the best interest of the child.” Id.

In determining a property child support amount for parents who fall into this category, the court will likely consider the lifestyle in which the children lived before the divorce. There is no monetary cap to the child support for parents who fall into this category. The court is only limited by the best interest of the child and the ability of the custodial parent to provide basic necessities.

In Georgia, child support is calculated using both the mother’s and the father’s incomes. O.C.G.A. §19-6-15. Generally, the Court determines the annual gross incomes of both parties (or imputes what it believes the income should be based upon a party’s education and work experience) and runs those numbers through a child support calculator to determine the proper amount of child support. The amount of child support is presumptive and may be rebutted by either party, and court may deviate from the amount determined by the child support calculator. OCGA §19-6-15(i)(1)(A).

In deviating, the court must give primary consideration to the best interest of the child(ren) for whom support is being determined. Id. The court must specifically find “that an amount of child support other than the amount calculated is reasonably necessary to provide for the needs of the child for whom child support is being determined.” OCGA §19-6-15 (i)(1)(B). In addition, no deviation shall be made “which seriously impairs the ability of the custodial parent to maintain minimally adequate housing, food, and clothing for the child being supported by the order and to provide other basic necessities.” OCGA §19-6-15 (i)(1)(C).

There are eleven deviation categories, all of which will be explained further in future blogs: high income; low income; other health related insurance; life insurance; child and dependent care tax credit; travel expenses; alimony; mortgage; permanency plan or foster care plan; extraordinary expenses; parenting time; and nonspecific deviation.

The Supreme Court of Georgia recently heard an interesting case regarding self-executing child support provisions in a divorce settlement agreement. In Tanner v. Morris, the parties’ divorce settlement agreement gave the mother primary physical custody and stated that the father was to pay child support to the mother for the three minor children “for so long as each child shall remain in high school and while also living at home with Wife prior to beginning college or other secondary education.” Tanner v. Morris, S10A1227 at 2 (2010) (emphasis added).

Shortly after the divorce was final, the parties’ eldest child began living with the father, and the father ceased making child support payments for that child. Id. The middle child subsequently began living with the father, and the father thereafter ceased making child support payments for that child. Id. at 3. When the father refused the mother’s request for return of the middle child to her custody, the mother filed an action for contempt. Id. The trial court held that the father had child support arrearage for both children, but only held him in contempt for the support for the middle child, since the mother never requested return of the eldest child. Id. The father appealed.

The Supreme Court of Georgia found that the language “while also living at home with Wife” made the child support provision self-executing, meaning that the child support was modifiable without a new order from the court. Id. at 4. Since the Court has previously held self-executing provisions such as this one to be lawful, the Court held that “it was error for the trial court to hold [the father] in contempt for relying on the self-executing provision in the parties’ settlement agreement to reduce his child support obligation when he had [the mother’s] consent to allow the children to live with him." Id. Thus, the portion of the trial court’s judgment as to the arrearage for the eldest child was reversed. Id. at 5. The Court also vacated the arrearage amount for the middle child, holding that “the arrearage amount should be from the time [the father] lost [the mother’s] consent to keep the middle child, rather than the full amount awarded by the trial court." Id.

The Georgia Court of Appeals recently reversed a Dekalb County Superior Court’s grant of an upward child support modification. In that case, a mother filed for a modification of her child support obligation against her ex-husband, who had primary physical custody of their children. Harris v. Williams, 304 Ga. App. 390 (2010).

This trial court’s decision to increase the mother’s child support obligation is somewhat unique because the mother asked for a modification, but “did not allege any change in her income or financial status to support a modification of her child support, and [the father] did not file a counterclaim to modify child support.” Id. at 393. Yet the trial court still increased the child support obligation. In order to modify child support, a party must show “a substantial change in either parent’s income and financial status or the needs of the child[ren].” OCGA §19-6-15(k)(1). In this case, there was no evidence that the mother’s income or earning capacity had increased, and nothing was mentioned about any increased needs of the children. Harris, 304 Ga. App. at 394.

Generally, a trial court’s decision on a child support modification is reviewed for an “abuse of discretion” and, if there is evidence to support the trial court’s decision, the appellate court will affirm. Id. at 393. Here, due to the lack of evidence supporting a modification, the Georgia Court of Appeals found that the trial court abused its discretion in increasing the mother’s child support obligation, and reversed that portion of the judgment. Id. at 394.

The Georgia Supreme Court recently reversed a Cobb County Superior Court’s grant of a child support modification. In Herrin v. Herrin, the father had primary physical custody of the children and the mother was paying child support pursuant to a settlement agreement in the parties’ previous divorce action. Herrin v. Herrin, 287 Ga. 427 (2010). The father filed a petition for modification of child support alleging that the mother’s income had increased. Id. at 428. Following a hearing, the superior court found a “substantial and material change in the mother’s income,” basing its ruling, in part, on the mother’s ability to earn additional income. Id.

On appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court stated “[i]n certain circumstances, earning capacity rather than gross income may be used to determine child support, and while a party’s past income is some evidence of earning capacity, it alone is not conclusive, but must be considered along with other relevant circumstances.” Id., quoting Duncan v. Duncan, 262 Ga. 872, 873 (1993). The evidence showed that the mother’s income had actually decreased by the time of the modification hearing, that she had tried to increase her hours and find a higher paying job but was unable to do so, and, though she had a real estate license, “she was unable to pursue a career selling real estate because of the depressed real estate market and her inability to fund out-of-pocket expenses required of a real estate sales agent.” Herrin, 287 Ga. at 429.

Looking at all of these relevant circumstances, the Georgia Supreme Court agreed with the mother and reversed the child support modification, holding that the record from the trial court proceedings “is devoid of evidence that the mother had the ability or means to earn the amount found by the superior court and upon which it based the award of increased child support.” Id. at 427.

When one thinks of custody and visitation in a divorce case, the first thing that most likely comes to mind is: “When will I see my children?” An important aspect of visitation is not only when you will see your children, but also when you will be able to speak to them during the times in which your former spouse has custody/visitation. For many parents this is a no brainer – the children can speak to the other parent as often as they would like. In more adversarial divorces, however, this is not always the case. Sometimes one parent may feel that the other parent calls too often, disrupting his/her visitation or custodial time, or calls at inopportune times, when the children are doing homework or asleep.

Our family law firm recommends putting a clause in your settlement agreement addressing telephone visitation. It can be as simple as stating that the children may call the other parent at any time, but the parents may only once per day. It may also address issues such as one parent eavesdropping while the child(ren) is speaking to the other parent.

If you are unable to settle your divorce case and you believe telephone visitation may be an issue with your former spouse, be sure to bring it up to the Judge so that he/she may rule on it in the Final Judgment and Decree of Divorce and your rights will be protected.

In this era of social networking websites such as Facebook and My Space, you can find out just about anything about anyone. You can find out their likes and dislikes, their friends, and what they like to do socially. Often, you can even see pictures to give you a snapshot into a particular person’s life. In general, if you value your privacy, you should be careful of what you post on these social networking sites. If you are involved in a family law case, you should be even more careful. Anything you post can, and likely will, be seen by the opposing party in your case and his/her attorney. If possible, this information will be used against you in your case. For example, if you are going through a divorce and are attempting to gain custody of your children, photos of you habitually drinking could be used against you to show that you are an unfit parent. If you are claiming you have no money to pay child support, photos of you with expensive cars, clothes, or jewelry, or on luxury vacations, will likely hinder your success in your case. It is best to assume that anything you post online will be seen by your adversary and act (and post!) accordingly.

The Supreme Court of Georgia recently affirmed a case from Gwinnett County Superior Court regarding relocation and child custody. Almon-Davis v. Davis, 286 Ga. 456 (2010). In that divorce case, both parties requested primary physical custody of their three minor sons. At the request of the husband, the court appointed a Guardian ad Litem (“GAL”) to investigate and make a custody recommendation. Id. at 457. After conducting his investigation, the GAL recommended that the father, who was living in Denver at the time, have primary physical custody, and the trial court entered a final judgment and decree of divorce to this effect. Id.

The mother appealed, contending “the trial court abused its discretion in adopting the GAL's report and recommendation… without considering the impact on the children of the Husband's out-of-state move.” Id. The Georiga Supreme Court disagreed, quoting a seminal relocation case, which states: “When exercising its discretion in relocation cases, as in all child custody cases, the trial court must consider the best interests of the child and cannot apply a bright-line test…[T]he primary consideration of the trial court in deciding custody matters must be directed to the best interests of the child involved, that all other rights are secondary, and that any determination of the best interests of the child must be made on a case-by-case basis. This analysis forbids the presumption that a relocating custodial parent will always lose custody and, conversely, forbids any presumption in favor of relocation.” Id., quoting Bodne v. Bodne, 277 Ga. 445 (2003). The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the transcript and found that the trial court’s consideration of the father’s move “in regard to the children’s welfare and its pragmatic consequences were pivotal” in its custody determinations. Almon-Davis at 458.

Thus, in relocation cases, there is not a presumption that someone will win or lose custody due to a party moving out of the city or state. The court will always look at the specific facts of the case and determine the best interests of the children involved.

Atlanta divorce attorneys are often asked about the form in which child support and/or alimony payments should be made (i.e. cash, check, money order). Obviously, if the order for support specifies the form in which the payments are to be made, then the payor is obligated to make the payments in that format. Often, however, the form of payment is not specified, and it is just up to the payor to ensure that the payee receives the amount due. Since divorce and/or support cases are often contentious, we highly recommend making support payments in a format that can be tracked, such as a check, rather than cash. Even if you are on good terms with your former spouse, we recommend paying with a check. There is a reason that you are no longer married to or in a relationship with the person who you are supporting, and there is always a chance that the your relationship could sour. If you paid your support in cash, there is no paper trail, which could be problematic if the payee alleges that you did not fulfill your support obligations. In these situations, it is always better to have the ability to show documents verifying your payments, if the need arises.

The Court of Appeals recently addressed a custody modification in a military family. In Mitcham v. Spry, the parents’ divorce settlement agreement provided that the parties would have “joint legal and physical custody, with each parent having the minor child for six months and the custodial parent having final decision making authority.” Mitcham v. Spry, 300 Ga. App. 386 (2009). At the time of the divorce both parents were in the military, so they agreed that the child would reside with his paternal grandparents in Missouri during the parents’ periods of active duty. Id. at 387.

After both parents separated from the military, the father filed a Petition for Modification of Custody and the trial court found that there had been a material change in circumstances warranting a change of primary physical custody to the father. Id. at 388. The mother appealed, arguing that the grounds upon which the trial court relied were equally weighted and, thus, custody should remain the same.

Upon review of the transcript and record, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the trial court. The Court of Appeals reiterated that the trial court must look at the best interests of the child in determining custody, which they did in this case. The transcript did show that “the trial court acknowledged that both parties were fit and nurturing parents; that both had established a loving relationship with the child; and that since the time of the divorce, the parties had shared equal custody of the child.” Id. at 390. However, the trial court found that the father had a strong support system by living near his family, and that the child had developed a strong bond with the paternal grandparents from spending so much time there while his parents were deployed. Id. Under the circumstances, the Court of Appeals agreed that these facts tipped the scales in favor of the father and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the father primary custody.

Recently, the Georgia Court of Appeals addressed the issue of a parent not being properly served with a custody modification action. In that case, pursuant to their Dekalb county divorce decree, the parties were granted joint legal and physical custody of their son. Hudson v. Easterling, 301 Ga. App. 207 (2009). Shortly after the divorce was final, the mother filed a petition for contempt against the father alleging several violations of the divorce decree. Id. While the contempt petition was still pending, the mother filed a petition to modify visitation but the father was not served with this action due to an incorrect address. Id. The Dekalb county trial court held a hearing on both the contempt and modification actions, for which the notice was sent to the father’s correct address. Both parties appeared at the hearing where the court granted the mother’s modification petition. Id.

The father appealed, contending that “trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over him because he was not personally served with the modification petition,” but the Georgia Court of Appeals rejected his argument. Id. at 208. The Court affirmed long standing Georgia law holding that the father “personally appeared at the hearing on the modification petition,” and “[n]othing in the record shows that [he] raised the issue of insufficient service of process at that time.” Id. The father, therefore, implicitly consented to jurisdiction and waived any claim of insufficient service of process. Id.

Recently, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the great discretion of the Dekalb County trial court in determining how to handle a father who was in contempt of his child support obligation. Henry v. Beacham, 301 Ga. App. 160 (2009). The father, who was a professional football player, had failed to make child support payments according to the trial court’s temporary order in the case. Id. at 161. In addition, the trial court found that, despite his significant income, he “had encountered financial problems over the course of his professional athletic career.” Id. In light of these facts, the trial court ordered an income deduction order and ordered that the father “fund a $ 250,000 trust, which would be invaded only in the event that [he] failed to pay his obligations.” Id. Any money remaining in the trust would be refunded to the father at the conclusion of his child support obligation.

The father was later found in contempt for failing to fund the trust and appealed, alleging that the trust was not authorized under the child support guidelines. Id. at 162. The Georgia Court of Appeals disagreed, quoting OCGA 19-6-15(c)(2)(B) which states that the trial court is authorized to order the "manner, how often, to whom, and until when the support shall be paid." Id. at 163. The Court further stated that OCGA 19-6-15, “as a whole establishes that the legislature has granted trial courts broad discretion when ruling on child support obligations based on the factors presented to the court at the time of the award.” Id. at 163. Looking at the facts of the case, the Court of Appeals found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the father to fund a trust in case he, again, failed to satisfy his child support obligation.

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.

We recently represented a husband in a successful appeal of his dismissed child support modification action. The parties were divorced in 2007 and, according to the final judgment and decree of divorce, the wife was awarded primary custody of the 4 children and the husband was obligated to pay child support. Specifically, the final judgment and decree stated that child support would be “due and payable. . . until such time as the youngest minor child dies, marries, enters the military, attains the age of eighteen, or is otherwise emancipated, whichever first occurs; provided, however, that in the event that any of the minor children turn 18 years of age while still in high school, [Husband's] child support obligations shall continue for that child until such time as the child graduates from high school, but in no event to extend past the child's twentieth birthday.” (emphasis added) Grenevitch v. Grenevitch, S09A0320

When the parties’ eldest child turned 18 years old, the husband filed a Complaint for Modification of Child Support stating that his child support obligation should be modified downward accordingly. The trial court refused to give the husband an opportunity to present evidence of whether the child had turned 18 and graduated from high school and, rather, dismissed the modification action, finding no substantial change warranting a modification and awarded the wife attorney’s fees.

The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the trial court’s ruling, thereby allowing the husband’s modification action to proceed. The Court looked at the plain language of the divorce decree and found no ambiguity, reasoning that the language shows that the parties contemplated a change in the husband’s child support obligation. Since the parties contemplated a change, the husband should have been able to present evidence showing that a change was warranted. This case shows the importance of the language in your divorce decree. The court is going to look at the actual language of the Order regardless of whether you or your spouse believes you have agreed to something else. If something is important to you, make sure it is in the Order and written very clearly so that it cannot be misinterpreted.

One of the most confusing aspects of child custody cases can be where the case should be filed when the parents live in different states. Generally, in regards to custody modification actions, the law limits a parent’s ability to terminate the continuing jurisdiction of the court that made the original custody determination in order to prevent the noncustodial parent from trying to use his or her “home jurisdiction advantage” to modify custody to the disadvantage of the custodial parent. There is, however, one exception to this general rule which provides that a Georgia court "has temporary emergency jurisdiction [to make a child custody determination] if the child is present in this state and . . . it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because the child . . . is subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse." O.C.G.A. §19-9-64(a).

The Georgia Court of Appeals recently addressed this issue in Taylor v. Curl (A09A0749). In that case, subsequent to the parties’ Jackson County divorce, the mother moved with the children to Florida and the father moved to Walker County. While the children were visiting the father, he filed a petition for temporary and emergency custody of his children in the Superior Court of Walker County, citing mistreatment and abuse of the children by their mother. The mother appealed arguing that Walker County was not the proper venue for the custody modification. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling granting temporary custody to the father, thereby affirming jurisdiction. Since the father met the two requirements outlined in O.C.G.A. §19-9-64(a), the trial court properly exercised temporary, emergency jurisdiction.

An interesting alimony modification case from Cumming, Georgia was recently reviewed (and affirmed) by the Georgia Supreme Court on April 28, 2009. See Crosby v. Lebert (S09A09). The facts in that case indicated that parties were divorced in December of 2005. The parties had entered into a settlement agreement in their Forsyth County divorce that required the Husband to make monthly installments on a Cadillac Escalade, but the payments were clearly defined as permanent periodic alimony, which "terminate upon remarriage of the party to whom the obligations are owed" under O.C.G.A. § 19-6-5 (b). Additionally, the Husband was required to pay the Wife’s health insurance, but these payments were considered periodic alimony payments as well. The Wife remarried in April of 2006 and the Husband informed her that she would be responsible for the remaining payments on the automobile and her own health insurance.

When the Wife protested, the Husband filed a Declaratory Judgment and moved for Summary Judgment. OCGA § 19-6-5 (b) states that "All obligations for permanent alimony, however created, the time for performance of which has not arrived, shall terminate upon remarriage of the party to whom the obligations are owed unless otherwise provided." The Forsyth County divorce judge agreed with the Husband and the Wife became responsible for the remaining payments on the Escalade and her health insurance.

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling. The Wife argued that the Husband was supposed to “pay all monthly installment payments of Wife’s vehicle until the vehicle is paid in full” and he could therefore not stop his payments because of her remarriage. The rest of that provision , however, stated “…and shall do so in the form of permanent periodic alimony” (emphasis added). The Supreme Court found that the second half of the provision clearly showed the intent of the parties was to have it governed by OCGA § 19-6-5 (b).

On March 23, 2009, the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the trial court’s denial of the wife’s motion for new trial in her divorce action in Rembert v. Rembert (S08F1582). Specifically, the wife alleged that the trial court erred in granting final decision making authority to the husband, who was the primary physical custodian of the parties’ children, and in awarding primary physical custody to the husband.

In regard to decision making, the wife argued that the parties did not truly have joint legal custody because the husband had final decision making authority. The Supreme Court disagreed, reaffirming a prior holding that the language of the statute governing legal custody “clearly vests in the trial court discretion to decide which parent should be empowered to make final decisions where the parents are unable to agree.” Citing Frazier v. Frazier, 280 Ga. 687, 690 (2006). As the primary physical custodian, it was appropriate that the father had final decision making authority in the likely event that the parties would not agree.

In regard to primary physical custody, the Supreme Court held that it would not disturb the trial court’s judgment awarding custody to the father, who had a stable home and a job with a regular schedule, instead of the mother, who was dating a married man, was a full time student with substantial debt, and had threatened the life of a neighbor.

On January 28, 2009, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Gwinnett County Juvenile Court regarding the modification of a temporary child support award in a deprivation case. In In the Interest of R.F. (A08A1683), a biological mother’s five children were found to be deprived and removed from her custody, and she was ordered to pay child support to the temporary custodians. She alleged that the trial court erred by treating her motion as one for modification of child support rather than a final child support order, ignoring statutory guidelines in determining the child support amount, and in refusing to modify the previous order.

The Court of Appeals rejected the mother’s argument that her petition was one for a final child support order. The Court questioned whether a juvenile court was the proper jurisdiction for a final child support order, but rested its holding on the fact that there had been no final disposition of the deprivation proceedings and, thus, there could be no final order.

The mother further contended that the trial court erred in treating funds from trust proceeds as her income for purposes of a child support determination. The Court of Appeals easily dismissed this argument, citing to O.C.G.A. §19-6-15(f)(1)(A)(x), which states that both trust income and gifts that consist of cash should be included in calculating gross income for child support purposes.

In addition, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling in refusing to modify the child support amount. Interestingly, though the mother was trying to modify her support obligation downward, she argued that the substantial change warranting modification was the fact that the children had increased educational expenses. The Court simply stated that “the fact that the needs of the children have increased cannot serve as the basis for decreasing the amount of child support a parent is obligated to pay” and found no other basis for downward modification, based upon the evidence presented at trial.

On November 13, 2008, the Georgia Court of Appeals issued a ruling in Kean v. Marshall (A08A0828) regarding the issue of proper jurisdiction for a child support modification action. The original child support Order was in Alabama, but the Mother sought to record and modify the Order in Georgia pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA). The Mother filed her Petition in Henry County, Georgia, contending that the Father resided there and was, therefore, subject to jurisdiction. The trial court denied the Father’s motion to dismiss the action due to lack of jurisdiction and entered an Order modifying the child support amount.

The Court of Appeals reversed this ruling finding that the evidence reflected that the Father was domiciled in Alabama. The Court of Appeals placed emphasis on the fact that the Father “was registered to vote in Alabama, has always paid Alabama income taxes, has an Alabama driver’s license, and cares for his elderly father in Alabama.” There was also extensive evidence that the Father considered Alabama to be his home and intended to remain there, despite his military placement. Though the Mother argued that he resided in Georgia because he spent time there in the military and entered into an apartment lease while he was there, the Court of Appeals specifically found that the term “reside” does not mean “domiciled,” and that a person’s domicile is the place where the person resides with an intent to remain permanently or for an indefinite period of time. In reversing the trial court’s ruling, the Court of Appeals held that “[t]he proper focus is whether the record contained evidence that [the Father] took any action to change his residence from Alabama to Georgia, and the record is devoid of evidence showing any such action.”

Interestingly, in this case, the Order modifying child support was based upon an agreement by the parties with the Father reserving his right to appeal based on lack of jurisdiction.

Our final blog entry in our Atlanta Divorce Lawyers Guide to Divorce and Family Law Cases in Fulton County, Georgia is in regards to the Fulton County’s Guardian Ad Litem program. A Guardian Ad Litem is an attorney who has had at least 20 hours of specialized training for child welfare and custody issues. In cases involving contested child custody, modifications of custody, modification of visitation, allegations of child neglect or child abuse, the Court can assign a Guardian Ad Litem to more closely evaluate the situation and report back to the court its findings. The Court or the Guardian Ad Litem can order psychological evaluations and drug testing if applicable to help in making a custody determination.

The cost of a Guardian Ad Litem can be rather high for most divorces in Georgia. Litigants should be aware that Fulton County offers a Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) at a reduced hourly rate.

According to O.C.G.A. § 19-6-28.1(b), the licensing agencies in Georgia can revoke or suspend someone’s license if he or she is in arrears behind in paying child support for a period of more than sixty days. Not only can the Georgia Department of Driver Services suspend someone’s drivers license, but the person’s professional license, such as a license to practice medicine. A business license as well as hunting and fishing licenses can also be suspended. Also, if the non-paying parent applies for the license, the application can be denied based solely on the fact that he or she is in arrears with child support. Georgia is not the first state to implement such a drastic law to punish parents who are in arrears. For years, the states of Ohio, Tennessee, and Arizona, have suspended drivers licenses because someone owes back owed child support to their ex-spouse.

When this law comes into effect in July, there are going to be those who support the law and who oppose it. Some people may feel that it is unfair because if they don’t have a driver’s license, then they cannot get to work to earn the money to pay child support. Prior to revoking or suspending someone’s license, the court will notify the person who is in arrears. If he or she is able and willing to cooperate with the court to make their child support obligation current and to provide evidence to the court, then the court will consider this and may not revoke or suspend his or her license according to O.C.G.A. § 19-6-28.1(b). This law is meant only to punish those who do not plan on becoming current with their child support obligations. Once the court has contacted the person and has determined that he or she is not going to pay the back owed child support, then the court will enter into an order and contact the licensing agency for the person’s failure to pay child support. If the licensing agency revokes or suspends his or her license, then the licensing agency will contact the court according to O.C.G.A. §19-6-28.1(b).

Continue reading "Penalties for not paying child support in Georgia: License revocation" »

In Georgia, child support orders may be modified upon a showing of a substantial change in either parent’s income or financial status, or in the needs of the children. O.C.G.A. §19-6-15(k)(1). A substantial change could include the loss of a job, decrease in income, increase in income, increase in the medical needs of the children, increase in the educational needs of the children (i.e. private school, tutoring, etc.), or decrease in the needs of the children (i.e. child no longer needs day care). This substantial change must occur between the date of the divorce decree or previous child support action and the filing of the new petition for modification of child support.

Generally, you can only bring a child support modification action once every two years so keep this in mind when deciding whether or not to file a modification. The two year limitation does not apply from the date of your divorce decree, but rather from the date of your last modification. In other words, you could bring a modification action within a few months of your divorce decree, but you would have to wait two years after that modification action before you could come back to court again. There are three exceptions to this two year rule: (1) If the non-custodial parent has failed to exercise court ordered visitation; (2) if the non-custodial parent has exercised more visitation than provided in the court order; or (3) the modification action is based upon an involuntary loss of income. O.C.G.A. §19-6-15(k)(2)(A) – (C).

Any modification of these orders must be done prospectively. This means that the Court can only modify these orders from the date of the filing of a petition. The Court cannot retroactively modify court orders from the date of the substantial change.

The Georgia Court of Appeals has entered a decision on November 13, 2008 in regards to the effective date of a modification of child support award. In Hampton v Nesbit(A08A1887) the court of appeals held that the Judge Merck, DeKalb Superior Court, abused its discretion in ordering a delay in the upward modification of child support until such time as the past due child support payments have been made.

In that action, the father had filed a petition seeking joint physical and legal custody of the minor child. The mother counterclaimed for contempt due to father’s past due child support payments. After hearing evidence, the trial court entered an income deduction order against the father which ordered the father to repay the arrearages at a rate of $300 per month beginning October 1, 2007 in order to avoid jail time and increased the amount of child support from $525 per month to $800 per month starting October 1, 2008 (at which point the trial court determined that the father should be caught up with his arrearages). The mother appealed indicating that the trial court could not delay the effective date of the upward award of modification.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and held that the trial court did not have the right to fully delay implementation of the upward modification. Specifically, the Court of Appeals focused its attention upon O.C.G.A. § 19-6-15(k)(3)(B) which provides:

If there is a difference of 30 percent or more between a new award and a Georgia child support order entered prior to January 1, 2007, the court may, at its discretion, phase in the new child support award over a period of up to two years with the phasing in being largely evenly distributed with at least an initial immediate adjustment of not less than 25 percent of the difference and at least one intermediate adjustment prior to the final adjustment at the end of the phase-in period.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeals specifically held that while the trial court did not have authority to completely delay the modification it could have phased in the modification had the statutory requirements been met. Of note, the Court of Appeals also held that past due child support cannot be considered when reducing or increasing income under the child support calculations.

With the state of the economy in the United States today, it is not uncommon to hear that more and more people are losing their jobs and having difficulty finding new jobs that pay as well as their previous ones. While this is obviously having a huge effect on our economy as a whole, it is also creating new difficulties with individual’s child support obligations.

If you find yourself in this type of position, it is important to learn what to do, and not to do. The biggest mistake we see people make is that they don’t do anything. They stop paying child support and do not file anything with the court seeking assistance with this type of situation. This is the quickest way to find yourself in a contempt action and facing possible jail time.

Instead, if you are no longer able to pay child support or alimony because of your changed financial status, you can and should file a modification action with the court. This is the only way to legally change your support obligation. The court will not honor any verbal agreements that you and your spouse may make.

Continue reading "Modification of Child Support and/or Alimony After the Loss of a Job in Georgia" »

Although there are several grounds for ending alimony, one of the most common is that a party decides to remarry. In these types of cases, O.C.G.A. § 19-6-5(b) indicates that a prior award of alimony can be modified if you decide to get re-married, and the modification will result in terminating your former spouse’s alimony obligation. What many people find surprising, however, is that remarriage is not the exclusive defining test for ending alimony.

Much more common is that after a parties divorce, one of the parties decides to date and eventually decides, without getting remarried, to move into the same residence with their new significant other. The State of Georgia has enacted a law, which is commonly referred to as the “live-in” lover statute, which addresses this exact situation. According to O.C.G.A. § 19-6-19(b), if you and your significant other are living together and having sexual relations, then your former spouse can file for modification of alimony upon the ground that you and your significant other are living together in a meretricious relationship. Adding to the equation, the court will be under the assumption in this type of situation that your need for alimony has just decreased because you are now splitting financial responsibilities with this person.

When deciding whether you want to seek a modification under this type of situation, you need to keep in mind that the court will require that you submit proof of this meretricious relationship. In addition, you must always be mindful that if the judge decides after reviewing the petition and the evidence that your former spouse is not living in a meretricious relationship, then you would be responsible for paying all of your former spouse’s attorney’s fees incurred in defending the action in addition to being responsible for your own attorney’s fees.

The Georgia Supreme Court issued an order today in Pineres v. George, S08A0773, which has several implications for Georgia law. First, it held that a trial judge has no authority in a contempt proceeding to modify the obligations imposed by a divorce decree. Second, the Georgia Supreme Court held that medical expenses constitute a form a child support.

Of note in this case, the modification being sought was in regards to the psychological expenses for the minor child and there had previously been a petition for modification of child support made less than two years ago. Because Georgia law prohibits a modification of child support less than two years after an order on a previous modification petition by the same spouse, it upheld an awarded of frivolous litigation fees under O.C.G.A. § 9-15-14 against the spouse that was now seeking to modify the amount of medical expenses that they had to pay.