Edwards v. Edwards, 31386
Decision Date | 20 October 1976 |
Docket Number | No. 31386,31386 |
Parties | Margaret Ann EDWARDS v. Jesse Talton EDWARDS. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Sparrow & Walhausen, Marietta, for appellant.
Robert L. Cork, Valdosta, for appellee.
Margaret Ann Edwards appeals from an order of the Lowndes Superior Court awarding the father permanent custody of their child following their divorce.
1. She contends that the trial court erred in awarding custody of their eleven-year-old daughter to the father. At the custody hearing, the trial court had ample evidence before it from which to determine the proper placement of custody. We find no abuse of discretion.
2. The custody award also ruled that the mother 'shall have the right to visit with the child and have the child visit with her, at reasonable and convenient times and places.' The mother argues that this order, in effect, deprives her of visitation rights under the facts of this case because the father lives in Lowndes County and she lives in Cobb County, a distance of over 200 miles, and the relationship between the parties has been such that he can be expected not to allow her 'reasonable' visitation privileges. As was stated in Davis v. Coggins, 232 Ga. 508, 509, 207 S.E.2d 490, 491 (1974): 'Where the parties are unable to agree upon 'reasonable visitation rights,' this may be tantamount to a complete denial of visitation rights.'
The mother cites Smith v. Smith, 225 Ga. 241, 167 S.E.2d 597 (1969), and argues that unless she enumerates error in this appeal on the reasonable visitation provision, she will be required to show a change of condition affecting the child before she can obtain a modification of the original award to provide for specific visitation rights.
It should be noted that in recent cases coming before this court on petition to modify, where the trial judge has changed 'reasonable' visitation to specific visitation, this court has agreed with the trial judge's finding of some change of condition affecting the child authorizing the change from 'reasonable' to specific. See Howell v. Howell, 232 Ga. 537, 207 S.E.2d 492 (1974); Williamson v. Brazell, 236 Ga. 798, 225 S.E.2d 304 (1976); Homans v. Street, 237 Ga. 649, 229 S.E.2d 432 (1976).
Moreover, Ga.L.1976, p. 1050, added the following to three Code sections (§ 30-127, § 50-121, § 74-107): We read this amendment to have the effect of overruling the holding in Smith v. Smith, supra. In addition, we read this amendment as allowing a trial judge, who has made an award of permanent custody with 'reasonable' visitation privileges, to provide specific visitation privileges once in the two-year period following the date of entry of such judgment. See Welch v. Welch, 213 Ga. 589(1), 100 S.E.2d 431 (1957).
However, neither the 1976 amendment nor the Howell, Williamson and Homans cases, supra, completely disposes of the issue before us, which is: Was it error under the facts of this case for the trial judge to provide for 'reasonable,' as opposed...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gazaway v. Brackett, s. 33050
...an increase or decrease in visitation will be affirmed unless it is shown that the trial court abused its discretion. Edwards v. Edwards, 237 Ga. 779, 229 S.E.2d 632 (1976); Warren v. Warren, supra; Nipper v. Rich, 241 Ga. 23, 244 S.E.2d However, where a third party (e. g., a grandparent) i......
-
Ryback v. Cobb County Dept. of Family & Children Services, 64314
...The same rule is applied to issues regarding visitation rights. Williamson v. Brazell, 236 Ga. 798, 225 S.E.2d 304; Edwards v. Edwards, 237 Ga. 779, 229 S.E.2d 632 (1976). This tragic case involves the refusal of visitation rights to the grandparents of the minor child of their daughter. Th......
-
Smith v. Smith, 70025
...rights were made definite by judicial specification and clarification. There was no abuse of discretion. See Edwards v. Edwards, 237 Ga. 779(2), 229 S.E.2d 632 (1976); Shook v. Shook, 2. The trial court ruled that during the time appellee resides in Germany, his parents may exercise his wee......
-
Andersen v. Farrington
...her rights to visit with the children.1 These are matters which lie within the discretion of the trial court, Edwards v. Edwards, 237 Ga. 779, 229 S.E.2d 632 (1976), which can, therefore, impose reasonable restrictions upon visitation as the circumstances may require. We find no abuse of di......