Grailer v. Jones
| Decision Date | 06 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | A18A2101 |
| Citation | 349 Ga.App. 625,824 S.E.2d 118 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | GRAILER v. JONES. |
Beverly L. Cohen, Roswell, Charles David Joyner, for Appellant.
Nicholas Paul Martin, Lawrenceville, Lawrence L. Washburn III, Michelle Lynne Stovall, for Appellee.
Following their divorce, Christy Grailer ("the mother") and Shanon Jones ("the father") share joint legal custody of their minor child, N. J. In their second appearance before this Court,1 the mother appeals three 2018 orders by the Juvenile Court of Gwinnett County dismissing her modification petition, granting the father's modification petition and granting him physical custody of N. J., denying her contempt motion, granting the father's motions for contempt, ordering her to pay child support, and awarding attorney fees to the father. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand the case for further proceedings.
This case has a protracted procedural history. The record shows that N. J. was born on July 21, 2002. The parties divorced in 2010, and pursuant to a settlement agreement, the judgment granted them joint physical and joint legal custody of N. J., with each parent having him half of the time. In August 2010, the father filed a modification petition, and the superior court entered an order in January 2011, again granting the parties joint physical and legal custody, with each party having alternating weekly physical custody. In July 2011, the mother filed a custody modification action, which the superior court dismissed, finding that there was no material change in circumstances. In January 2014, the father filed a petition to modify custody, attaching thereto an affidavit by N. J. in which he elected to live with the father. The following month, the mother filed an affidavit by N. J. in which he elected to live with the mother. The case was transferred to juvenile court, and in November 2014, the juvenile court entered an order granting the parties joint legal custody, but granting primary physical custody to the father and granting the mother visitation every other weekend and alternating Wednesdays.2 The juvenile court denied the mother's subsequent motion for new trial, and the mother appealed. In March 2016, the mother filed a petition for modification of custody; the father moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the previous modification order was still on appeal, and the trial court granted the dismissal. In June 2016, in an unpublished opinion, this Court affirmed the denial of the mother's motion for new trial, vacated the award of attorney fees to the father because the juvenile court did not specify the basis therefor, and remanded the case for reconsideration of the attorney fee issue.
On June 29, 2016, the mother filed in superior court her third petition for modification, attaching thereto an affidavit from N. J. electing to live with her. On July 7, 2016, the superior court transferred the case to juvenile court. On July 26, 2016, the juvenile court appointed a guardian ad litem ("GAL"). In his July 27, 2016 answer to the mother's modification petition, the father filed a counterclaim for modification of custody, requesting to eliminate the mother's Wednesday night visitation to reduce the number of times N. J. was exchanged; the father also sought an award of attorney fees under OCGA §§ 19-9-3 (g) and 9-15-14. On August 2, 2016, the juvenile court held a temporary hearing, and the court spoke with N. J. in chambers; at the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court apparently orally announced its ruling. On August 12, 2016, the father filed a motion for contempt, alleging that on three separate occasions the mother withheld N. J. from the father's visitation as orally ordered by the juvenile court at the August 2, 2016 hearing. On August 25, 2016, nunc pro tunc to August 2, 2016, the juvenile court entered a temporary order transferring temporary primary physical custody of N. J. to the mother and giving the father visitation every other Thursday through Monday.
On August 26, 2016, after again speaking with N. J. in chambers, the juvenile court entered an emergency order finding the mother in wilful contempt of the November 2014 order and its August 2, 2016 oral pronouncement by failing to return N. J. to his father on three separate occasions following her visitation.3 Thereafter, on August 12, 2016, and November 7, 2017, the father filed contempt motions alleging that the mother had interfered with his custody and/or visitation.4
On November 13-17, 2017, the juvenile court conducted a hearing on the parties’ motions, at which both parents and N. J. testified. After the mother rested her case, the father made an oral motion to dismiss her modification petition on the basis that she had withheld custody from him in violation of custody orders, citing OCGA § 19-9-24. The juvenile court orally granted the motion, stating:
On January 18, 2018, the father filed a contempt motion alleging that the mother had interfered with his visitation on January 15, 2018, by retrieving N. J. from the father's home at 10:30 p.m. On January 19, 2018, the mother filed a petition for a family violence ex parte temporary protection order ("TPO"); the superior court dismissed the petition because the mother elected not to go forward with it.
On January 31, 2018, the juvenile court entered a final order after considering the evidence, argument of counsel, and the recommendation of the GAL.5 The court stated that it dismissed the mother's motions for custody modification and for contempt because she withheld N. J. from the father 6 The court then found that: the mother had withheld visitation; three reports made to the Department of Family and Children Services about alleged abuse by the father were "all unsubstantiated"; her allegation that the father had withheld medication from N. J. was not credible; she had eliminated the father from any involvement in decision-making about N. J., including putting him on medication; and "the child's election has been influenced by his mother's seven[-]year war against the father[,] is not independent or wise[,] and certainly [is] not in his best interest." Finding a change in material circumstances as set forth in OCGA § 19-9-3, the juvenile court granted the father's counterclaim, modifying the November 26, 2014 and September 7, 2016 orders by incorporating a parenting plan that the mother was directed to prepare in accordance with the recommendations of the GAL. The parenting plan, which was entered on February 14, 2018, gave the father primary physical custody, granted the mother visitation every other weekend, certain times in the summer and on holidays, and eliminated midweek visitation. The court also required the mother to pay $476 per month in child support, adopting the father's child support addendum. Finally, the court awarded the father attorney fees in the amount of $7,500 pursuant to OCGA §§ 19-9-3 (g) and 9-15-14 (b).
On February 9, 2018, the mother filed her second petition for a family violence TPO in superior court. The superior court granted the petition, issuing a TPO awarding her custody, and N. J. was removed from the father's custody. On February 12, 2018, the father filed a contempt motion in juvenile court, alleging that the mother had interfered with his custody by obtaining the TPO in superior court. On February 13, 2018, the mother filed a notice of appeal of the juvenile court's January 31, 2018 final order modifying custody. On February 14, 2018, the mother filed an intent to seek review of the contempt order and automatic supersedeas.
On February 20, 2018, following a hearing at which the father, his attorney, the mother's attorney, and the GAL were present,7 the juvenile court entered an order on the father's January 18, 2018 and February 12, 2018 contempt motions, finding the mother in wilful contempt for interfering with the father's custody on January 15, 2018; it did not find her in contempt for obtaining the TPO. The court determined that the mother's February 9, 2018 petition for a TPO was based on the same allegations made during the November 2017 trial, and it vacated the TPO. The court ordered the mother to pay $5,870 in attorney fees to the father pursuant to OCGA § 19-6-2 and ordered the mother's immediate incarceration for 15 days or until she paid the attorney fees. On February 20, 2018, the mother filed an amended notice of appeal indicating her intention also to appeal the court's February 20, 2018 contempt order. On February 21, 2018, the juvenile court entered an amended order on the father's contempt motion, reinstating the TPO so that the magistrate judge sitting by designation for the superior court could preside over the TPO matter. On February 26, 2018, the mother filed her second amended notice of appeal, indicating her intention to also appeal the February 21, 2018 order. Finally, on March 28, 2018, the juvenile court withdrew the incarceration order.
1. The mother contends that the juvenile court erred by dismissing her modification petition pursuant to OCGA § 19-9-24. We disagree.
OCGA § 19-9-24 provides in relevant part:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Belknap v. Belknap
...to live with father, the court found it was in the child's best interest to remain with his mother). Cf. Grailer v. Jones , 349 Ga. App. 625, 631-32 (2), 824 S.E.2d 118 (2019) (holding, based on the evidence presented at the hearing and the court's consideration of the child's best interest......
-
Belknap v. Belknap, A19A0808
...election to live with father, the court found it was in the child’s best interest to remain with his mother). Cf. Grailer v. Jones , 349 Ga. App. 625, 631-32 (2), 824 S.E.2d 118 (2019) (holding, based on the evidence presented at the hearing and the court’s consideration of the child’s best......
-
Brooks v. Hayden
...Leon v. Monterrey Mexican Rest. of Wise, Inc. , 305 Ga. App. 222, 228 (3), 699 S.E.2d 423 (2010).15 See Grailer v. Jones , 349 Ga. App. 625, 633-34 (5), 824 S.E.2d 118 (2019) (vacating an attorney-fee award and remanding the case when, inter alia , the trial court failed to make "necessary ......
-
Belknap v. Elknap, A19A0808
...to live with father, the court found it was in the child's best interest to remain with his mother). Cf. Grailer v. Jones, 349 Ga. App. 625, 631-32 (2) (824 SE2d 118) (2019) (holding, based on the evidence presented at the hearing and the court's consideration of the child's best interest, ......
-
Real Property
...De Castro v. Durrell, 295 Ga. App. 194, 198, 671 S.E.2d 244, 249 (2008)).163. Id. at 648, 824 S.E.2d at 117.164. Id.165. Id. at 648, 824 S.E.2d at 118. 166. Id. at 648-49, 824 S.E.2d at 118.167. This section was authored by Linda S. Finley.168. 349 Ga. App. 203, 825 S.E.2d 542 (2019).169. I......