Childs v. Childs

Decision Date30 June 1976
Docket NumberNo. 31208,31208
Citation237 Ga. 177,227 S.E.2d 49
PartiesJames L. CHILDS, Jr. v. Beverly Jo Greathouse CHILDS.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Westmoreland, Patterson & Moseley, R. Robider Markwalter, Macon, for appellant.

Evans, Dozier, Mann & Wingate, Billy L. Evans, Buford E. Hancock, Macon, for appellee.

INGRAM, Justice.

The issue in this appeal is child custody. It arose in a divorce case between the parents. The question of temporary custody was referred by the superior court to the juvenile court and that court awarded temporary custody of the child to the maternal grandparents. Subsequently, when a divorce was granted by the superior court to the mother and father of the child it was stipulated that the juvenile court 'will decide the case for permanent custody.' The juvenile court awarded permanent custody of the child to the maternal grandparents and the father has appealed that decision to this court. We reverse.

The order of the juvenile court recites that, 'there has not been a sufficient change of circumstances by either the said father . . . or the mother . . . and that neither . . . (is) fit at this time to be awarded custody of (the child).' The order also indicates that this finding of unfitness by the juvenile court was based, at least in part, on evidence presented to the court on the prior hearing on the question of the temporary custody of the child.

' A parent may lose the right to custody only if one of the conditions specified in Code §§ 74-108, 74-109 and 74-110 is found to exist, or, in exceptional cases, if the parent is found to be unfit. Triplett v. Elder, 234 Ga. 243, 215 S.E.2d 247 (1975); Williams v. Ferrell, 231 Ga. 470(1), 202 S.E.2d 427 (1973); Perkins v. Courson, 219 Ga. 611, 135 S.E.2d 388 (1964).

' The unfitness of the parent should be shown by clear and convincing evidence that the circumstances of the case justify the court in acting for the best interest and welfare of the child. Code § 50-121; Heath v. Martin, 225 Ga. 181(2), 167 S.E.2d 153 (1969); Shaddrix v. Womack, 231 Ga. 628(6), 203 S.E.2d 225 (1974); Patman v. Patman, 231 Ga. 657, 203 S.E.2d 486 (1974).' White v. Bryan, 236 Ga. 349, 350, 223 S.E.2d 710, 711 (1976).

The law contemplates that one of the natural parents will be awarded custody of the child unless the present unfitness of the parents is established by clear and convincing evidence at the hearing on permanent custody. Only then is the trial court authorized to consider an award of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • McDermott v. Dougherty
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • 10 d4 Março d4 2005
    ...to consider an award of custody to third parties.'" Id. at 194, 276 S.E.2d at 689 (emphasis added) (quoting Childs v. Childs, 237 Ga. 177, 178, 227 S.E.2d 49, 50 (1976)).40 In a post-Troxel case, the intermediate appellate court in Virginia held "Custody and visitation disputes between two ......
  • Clark v. Wade
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 16 d5 Fevereiro d5 2001
    ...adoptive parent). 5. See Stills v. Johnson, 272 Ga. 645, 650, 533 S.E.2d 695 (2000). 6. OCGA § 1-3-1(a) (1990). 7. See Childs v. Childs, 237 Ga. 177, 227 S.E.2d 49 (1976). 8. See White v. Bryan, 236 Ga. 349, 223 S.E.2d 710 (1976) (affirming award of custody of four-year-old daughter to step......
  • M.M.A., In re
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 27 d3 Abril d3 1983
    ...firmly embedded in our law, that it is in the child's best interest to be with his natural parent or parents. Childs v. Childs, 237 Ga. 177, 227 S.E.2d 49 (1976); Larson v. Gambrell, 157 Ga.App. 193, 276 S.E.2d 686 (1981). In order for this presumption to be overcome, there must be a clear ......
  • Brooks v. Carson
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 19 d5 Janeiro d5 1990
    ...hearing on permanent custody. Only then is the trial court authorized to consider an award of custody to third parties.' Childs v. Childs, [237 Ga. 177 (227 SE2d 49) ]." (Emphasis supplied.) In re M. M. A., supra 166 Ga.App. at pp. 624-625, 305 S.E.2d The foregoing statements from both appe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT