Department of Human Resources v. Wilcox, A95A2162

• Decision Date: 03 January 1996
• Docket Number: No. A95A2162,A95A2162
• Citation: 219 Ga.App. 757,466 S.E.2d 662
• Parties: DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES v. WILCOX.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 662

466 S.E.2d 662

219 Ga.App. 757

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES v. WILCOX.

No. A95A2162.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Jan. 3, 1996.

Child support. Ben Hill Superior Court. Before Judge Faircloth.

Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, William C. Joy, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Kevin M. O'Connor, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.

John C. Pridgen, District Attorney, James E. Turk, Assistant District Attorney, Mills & Chasteen, Robert W. Chasteen, Jr., Fitzgerald, for appellee.

McMURRAY, Presiding Judge.

This is a discretionary appeal from a superior court order modifying an administrative decision of the appellant Georgia Department of Human Resources setting the amount of child support to be paid by a non-custodial parent, Bobby Wilcox. Held:

Appellant maintains that the superior court erred by setting the child support obligation at an amount below the statutory guidelines without written findings explaining the variance from the guidelines. Such written findings are required under OCGA § 19-6-15(b) and (c) as construed in Ehlers v. Ehlers, 264 Ga. 668, 669(1), 449 S.E.2d 840. "The finding 'must state the amount of support that would have been required under the guidelines and include justification of why the order varies from the guidelines.' " (Citation omitted.) Id. See also Faulkner v. Frampton, 216 Ga.App. 785, 456 S.E.2d 88.

Insofar as OCGA § 19-6-15(b) allows for a specific finding on the record in lieu of a written finding, it is inapplicable under the circumstances of the case sub judice since there is no transcript of the hearing before the superior court. In the absence of a transcript or substitute, we may not rely upon the assertions contained in the brief of Bobby Wilcox concerning specific findings made by the superior court at the hearing. Bank South, N.A. v. Zweig, 217 Ga.App. 77, 78(10), 456 S.E.2d 257; Morse v. Flint River Community Hosp., 215 Ga.App. 224, 226, 450 S.E.2d 253.

While OCGA § 19-6-15(c) has been amended since the decision in Ehlers v. Ehlers, 264 Ga. 668, 669(1), 449 S.E.2d 840, supra, the requirement for written findings remains. Accordingly, this case must be remanded for written findings in accordance with OCGA § 19-6-15(b) and (c), and Ehlers, after which either party may apply for appellate review.

Judgment vacated and case remanded with direction.

ANDREWS and BLACKBURN, JJ., concur.