Haskell v. Haskell
| Decision Date | 02 November 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. S09F1100.,S09F1100. |
| Citation | 286 Ga. 112,686 S.E.2d 102 |
| Parties | HASKELL v. HASKELL. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Callner, Portnoy & Strawser, Kathy L. Portnoy, Charla E. Strawser, Atlanta, for appellant.
Miriam A. Arnold-Johnson, Divida Gude, Decatur, for appellee.
Angela Haskell (Wife) and Brian Haskell (Husband) were married in 2001, and their only child was born in 2004. When the child was three years old, Wife brought this divorce action and was awarded temporary primary physical custody. In May 2008, she moved to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. After a final hearing in September 2008, the trial court entered a final divorce decree providing for joint legal custody and awarding primary physical custody to Husband. The 30-page final judgment contains extensive findings of fact, analysis, and conclusions of law on the issue of custody. The trial court applied the factors set forth in OCGA § 19-9-3(a)(3) and referred to this Court's decision in Bodne v. Bodne, 277 Ga. 445, 588 S.E.2d 728 (2003). "Considering the Bodne factors and all other relevant factors, including OCGA § 19-9-3, and based upon the specific facts and circumstances of this case," the trial court concluded "that the best interests of the child are served by awarding primary physical custody to [Husband] and secondary custody (`visitation') to [Wife]." Wife applied for a discretionary appeal, which we granted pursuant to our Pilot Project in divorce cases.
1. Wife contends that the trial court's award of primary physical custody to Husband is based on erroneous findings of fact and a misapplication of Bodne, and does not serve the best interests of the child.
Where[, as here,] the trial court has exercised its discretion and awarded custody of children to one fit parent over the other fit parent, this Court will not interfere with that decision unless the evidence shows the trial court clearly abused its discretion. [Cit.] Where there is any evidence to support the decision of the trial court, this Court cannot say there was an abuse of discretion. [Cit.] Welch v. Welch, 277 Ga. 808, 809, 596 S.E.2d 134 (2004). Urquhart v. Urquhart, 272 Ga. 548, 549(1), 533 S.E.2d 80 (2000). In considering a wide range of factors, the trial court here correctly avoided any presumption against relocation and adhered to
the public policy requirement set forth in OCGA § 19-9-3 that the primary consideration of the trial court in deciding custody matters must be directed to the best interests of the child involved, that all other rights are secondary, and that any determination of the best interests of the child must be made on a case-by-case basis. . . . [W]e conclude that the order of the trial court reflects that when making its custodial determination based on the best interests of the children standard, it appropriately considered the myriad factors that had an impact on the child[] as established by the evidence adduced before it.
Bodne v. Bodne, supra at 446-447, 588 S.E.2d 728. Ample evidence, including the child's close relationship with his father, continued use of the same speech therapist, and other evidence related to stability, continuity, and the child's adjustment to relocation, Welch v. Welch, supra. See also Hammond v. Hammond, 282 Ga. 456, 457(1), 651 S.E.2d 95 (2007).
2. Wife also contends that the trial court erroneously refused to consider evidence relevant to the issue of custody, including Husband's adultery and the child's close relationship with his maternal grandparents, who live near Wife.
The trial court made no ruling either excluding or refusing to consider evidence of adultery, but rather indicated only that placing such evidence in the record could later harm the child. "...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGuyton v. State
...concerning the plea. Moreover, this Court will not rule upon issues that were not raised and ruled upon below. Haskell v. Haskell, 286 Ga. 112, 686 S.E.2d 102 (2009).4 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 ...
-
Viskup v. Viskup
...of the child to one fit parent over the other fit parent, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion. Haskell v. Haskell, 286 Ga. 112(1), 686 S.E.2d 102 (2009). 3. Lastly, Father contends the trial court erred when it awarded attorney fees to Mother. The trial court's order require......
-
Kuehn v. Key
...[is] free to ascertain for itself the credibility of the witnesses”). 14. See Scott, supra;Smith, supra. 15. See Haskell v. Haskell, 286 Ga. 112(1), 686 S.E.2d 102 (2009) ( “It is the duty of the trial judge to resolve the conflicts in the evidence.”) (citation and punctuation omitted). 16.......
-
Strickland v. Strickland
...future needs, it was for the superior court, not the Court of Appeals to resolve conflicts in the testimony. See Haskell v. Haskell, 286 Ga. 112(1), 686 S.E.2d 102 (2009).6 After reviewing the record and giving the trial court's findings of fact the required deference, see Ellis, supra, we ......
-
Domestic Relations
...(2015).40. Id.41. Ga. Unif. Super. Ct. R. 5.5 (2015).42. Id.43. O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3(b) (2015).44. Id.45. See generally Haskell v. Haskell, 286 Ga. 112, 686 S.E.2d 102 (2009).46. 296 Ga. 30, 764 S.E.2d 840 (2014).47. Id. at 32, 38, 764 S.E.2d at 843, 845. 48. Id. at 32, 764 S.E.2d at 843.49. 2......