Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review arose from a custody dispute between a biological mother and her parents over three minor children. In 2006, grandparents Roy and Betty Strickland obtained emergency custody of their daughter Lea Strickland's three minor children. In October 2008, the juvenile court found all three children were deprived and, with mother’s consent, extended the grandparents’ temporary custody of the children through July 2010, granting mother supervised visitation. In mid-2010, grandparents filed a petition for permanent custody. The case was transferred to Cobb County Superior Court after the parties agreed venue was appropriate there. Following a five day bench trial, the superior court entered an order granting grandparents’ petition. Mother appealed, and finding that grandparents had failed to meet the high burden of proof sufficient to deprive mother of her custodial rights to the children, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court. Grandparents filed a petition for writ of certiorari in which they claimed the Court of Appeals erred in failing to give appropriate deference to the trial court’s factual findings and thus erred in reversing the trial court’s award of permanent custody to them. Because the Supreme Court found the Court of Appeals failed to properly apply the correct standard of review, it reversed the decision in this case and remanded for further proceedings. View "Strickland v. Strickland" on Justia Law

The Georgia Supreme Court granted appellant Peter Flory's application for discretionary appeal. He sought leave to challenge the final judgment and divorce decree from Appellee Lucie Wheeler Flory. Husband argued the trial court erroneously awarded Wife certain assets as separate, non-marital property. The Supreme Court agreed that the trial court erred in its division of property, and therefore reversed and remanded. View "Flory v. Flory" on Justia Law

Appellant Bradley Coppedge (husband) appealed a trial court’s order denying his petition for modification of child custody and visitation and holding him in contempt of a final divorce decree. He and appellee Cathering Coppedge (wife) were divorced in 2006. At the time the final decree was entered, husband and wife had two minor daughters who attended private school and summer and after-school care. In the spring of 2010, wife decided to remove the children from summer care and hired a babysitter to provide summer and after-school child care for the children in her home. In May 2010, husband filed a petition seeking modification of the final decree’s child custody and visitation awards. Husband subsequently reduced the amount of his monthly child support payments by the amount of his share of the cost of sending the children to after-school and summer care. Wife answered and counterclaimed for contempt, arguing, among other things, that husband had failed to pay approximately $7,000 in child support, an amount determined by calculating what husband would have been required to pay if the children were still attending after-school and summer care programs. The trial court concluded as a matter of law that the final divorce decree did not “confine these parties to [the summer care program, St. Luke] after care or summer camp, and that [husband] was not entitled to reduce child support without a Court order.” Husband’s motions for new trial and reconsideration were denied. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. "Applying general rules of contract construction, we cannot agree with the trial court’s conclusion that the relevant language of the decree unambiguously imposed upon husband an obligation to pay for a proportionate share of the cost of the babysitter hired by wife." The Supreme Court reversed on this issue, and affirmed in all other respects. View "Coppedge v. Coppedge" on Justia Law

In this divorce matter, Husband argued on appeal that the trial court improperly incorporated into his divorce decree a settlement agreement that was unenforceable. After review of the agreement at issue, the Supreme Court found no error and affirmed. View "Steele v. Steele" on Justia Law

Husband Donald Belcher and Wife Sarah Belcher divorced in 2005. Following a dispute over unpaid alimony to Wife in which Wife eventually prevailed, the trial court awarded $2,500 in attorney fees to Wife in a December 17, 2014, order. Husband initially filed a timely application for discretionary appeal of this order, and the Court of Appeals transferred the application to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted Husband’s application to determine whether the trial court erred in its award of attorney fees to Wife. In the December 17th order, the Supreme Court found the trial court did not make any express findings specifying abusive conduct for which an award under OCGA 9-15-14 (a) was proper. In addition, the trial court ordered Husband pay fees under OCGA 9-4-9. Wife conceded the trial court erred to the extent that it awarded attorney fees under OCGA 9-4-9 and to the extent that its award was procedurally improper under OCGA 9-15-14. As such, the Supreme Court reversed that portion of the December 17 order awarding fees, vacated the portion of the order awarding fees pursuant to OCGA 9-15-14, and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "Belcher v. Belcher" on Justia Law

Husband and wife were divorced in 2006. Pursuant to the divorce decree, the parties were given joint custody of their two minor children; wife was awarded primary physical custody. The decree gave husband “liberal visitation with the children as arranged from time to time” with wife. If the parties could not agree on visitation, the decree set forth a detailed visitation schedule for the parties to follow. Finally, the decree ordered husband to pay child support in the amount of $1,150 per month. Husband brought this action in 2011 seeking a modification of both custody and support. Wife answered and counterclaimed, alleging husband was in contempt of his financial obligations under the decree. the trial court denied husband’s request to change custody, but reduced husband’s child support obligation to $740 per month. The trial court also found husband in arrears of his obligations to pay child support, out-of-pocket medical expenses and health insurance premiums, and it ordered husband to pay these amounts to wife. Husband appeals. The Supreme Court found that no parenting plan was ever entered by the trial court. Although the divorce decree set forth a visitation schedule in great detail, it could not be said it complied with the requirements of a permanent parenting plan. Because the trial court failed to enter a permanent parenting plan when it entered the modification order, the Court remanded this case for compliance with the requirements of OCGA 19-9-1. The Court found no other error and affirmed in all other respects. View "McFarlane v. McFarlane" on Justia Law

In January 2012, a juvenile court put M.F. under a permanent guardianship, finding that the young girl was deprived as a result of problems that both of her parents had with substance abuse. Approximately two years later, her father filed a petition alleging that he resolved his problems with substance abuse, that he was a fit parent, and that he ought to have custody of his daughter. Although the petition was denominated a “complaint for custody,” the court construed it as a petition to modify, vacate, or revoke the guardianship pursuant to OCGA 15-11-244. As such, the Gwinnett County court concluded that the Juvenile Court of Douglas County properly had jurisdiction of the petition, and it transferred the petition to Douglas County. There, the guardians filed a motion to dismiss the petition, contending that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because, they argued, a change in the circumstances of a parent is no basis for a modification, vacatur, or revocation of a permanent guardianship. Finding that the juvenile court erred in dismissing the petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, the Supreme Court reversed as to this issue and remanded for further proceedings. View "In the Interest of M.F." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted an application of interlocutory appeal to determine whether the trial court erred when it denied enforcement of a prenuptial agreement. After a hearing, the trial court analyzed the agreement under the standard set forth in "Scherer v. Scherer;" the wife argued that the husband failed to establish eh made a full and fair disclosure of his financial condition. The trial court indeed found that though the agreement satisfied most of the Scherer test, the agreement was unenforceable due to the nondisclosure of certain material facts. Finding no error with this analysis, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's findings. View "Dodson v. Dodson" on Justia Law