Hayes v. Hayes, A90A1884
| Decision Date | 31 January 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. A90A1884,A90A1884 |
| Citation | 199 Ga.App. 132,404 S.E.2d 276 |
| Parties | HAYES v. HAYES. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Mary A. Stearns, Powder Springs, for appellant.
Adele P. Grubbs, Marietta, for appellee.
This discretionary appeal arises from an order entered on appellant's Complaint for Attachment for Contempt and Modification of Final Decree of Divorce. We granted the appeal to consider whether the trial judge abused his discretion in ordering that custody of the child remain with appellee.
The record and evidence adduced at the hearing on appellant's complaint showed that appellant and appellee were divorced on February 7, 1989; that appellee was awarded permanent custody of the parties' minor daughter and appellant was granted reasonable visitation with his daughter; that following the divorce, appellee's boyfriend lived with appellee and the child for approximately two months; that appellee and her boyfriend sometimes had the child in bed with them while they were watching television; that in April 1989, while the child was visiting appellant, the child began making a "humping" motion and said "Mommy (appellee) and Dan (boyfriend) do this"; that appellant and his girl friend lived together for approximately five months and the child often visited appellant on weekends while the two were living together; that appellee has previously used illegal drugs; that around November 1, 1989, appellee moved to Ohio with the child to live with her mother and go to college; that appellant was scheduled to pick up the child for visitation on November 15, 1989; and that prior to his scheduled visitation, appellant discovered that appellee had moved to Ohio with the child. Appellant subsequently filed the complaint which is the subject of this appeal.
Appellant contends in one enumeration of error with five subparts that the trial court abused its discretion in not changing custody from appellee to appellant and in not finding appellee to be in contempt of court. A change in custody of a minor child is authorized where there has been a change in any material conditions or circumstances of a party or the minor child. OCGA § 19-9-1(b). ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simmons v. Williams
...based on his prior convictions for multiple offenses, including armed robbery, assault, and battery). 2. Cf. Hayes v. Hayes, 199 Ga.App. 132, 133, 404 S.E.2d 276 (1991) (affirming the trial court's finding that there was no change in material circumstances justifying a modification in custo......
-
Beckman v. Beckman
...visitation based on his alleged "immoral conduct," where there was no evidence of any harm to the child); Hayes v. Hayes , 199 Ga. App. 132, 133, 404 S.E.2d 276 (1991) (concluding that trial acted within its discretion in declining to modify custody, where "[t]here was evidence that both pa......
-
Jewell v. McGinnis, A17A0161
...custody or visitation absent evidence that the child was harmed or exposed to inappropriate conduct. See, e.g., Hayes v. Hayes , 199 Ga. App. 132, 133, 404 S.E.2d 276 (1991) (affirming the trial court's finding that there was no change in material circumstances even though both parents were......
-
Mitcham v. Spry
...In the Interest of C.A., 225 Ga.App. 46, 48, 482 S.E.2d 534 (1997). 4. (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Hayes v. Hayes, 199 Ga.App. 132, 133, 404 S.E.2d 276 (1991). 5. See generally Moses, supra at 691(1), 637 S.E.2d 97 ("parent's cohabitation with someone, regardless of that person's ge......
-
In the Interest of R.e.w.: Visitation Rights of Homosexual Parents in Georgia - Allison Strazzella Brantley
...that the father was sexually attracted to his daughter). 23. Hughes, 217 Ga. App. at 569, 459 S.E.2d at 172. 24. Hayes v. Hayes, 199 Ga. App. 132,404 S.E.2d 276 (1991) (concerning a modification in custody). 25. Id. at 133, 404 S.E.2d at 277. 26. Id. 27. See generally Hertzler v. Hertzler, ......
-
Domestic Relations - Barry B. Mcgough and Gregory R. Miller
...S.E.2d at 100-01. 65. Id. at 692, 637 S.E.2d at 101; see Brandenburg v. Brandenburg, 274 Ga. 183, 551 S.E.2d 721 (2001); Hayes v. Hayes, 199 Ga. App. 132, 404 S.E.2d 276 (1991); Livesay v. Hilley, 190 Ga. App. 655, 379 S.E.2d 557 (1989). 66. O.C.G.A. Sec. 19-9-1 (2004). 67. O.C.G.A. Sec. 19......