Hester v. Mathis, 56231
| Decision Date | 21 September 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 56231,56231 |
| Citation | 248 S.E.2d 538,147 Ga.App. 257 |
| Parties | HESTER v. MATHIS. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Rudolph J. Chambless, Waycross, for appellant.
Perry & Franklin, J. Reese Franklin, Nashville, for appellee.
The petitioner in this adoption proceeding is married to the natural mother of the child. The child is a male, age 61/2 years old at the time of the adoption hearing.
The paternal grandfather of the child filed his objection to the petition, and presented evidence at the adoption hearing. The objection to the petition for adoption shows that the grandfather contests the adoption because the child is the last of a blood line, and if the adoption is allowed there will be no more male descendants to carry his name.
After hearing argument of counsel and evidence from all parties, the trial court, on April 3, 1978, denied the petition for adoption. The petitioner appeals, contending the trial court erred in failing to disqualify himself, misinterpreted Code Ann. Ch. 74-4 (), and the denial of the petition for adoption was an abuse of discretion. Held :
1. The issue of disqualification of the trial judge is raised for the first time in this court. The issue was not raised in the trial court so there is nothing for review. Meeks v. Guckenheimer & Sons, 102 Ga. 710(1), 29 S.E. 486.
2. The trial court sits as both judge and jury in an adoption case and is vested with a broad range of discretion, but this discretion is a legal discretion subject to the parameters of the law.
The grandparent has no standing to file objection to petitions for adoption while one of the natural parents of the child is in life. The trial judge erred in allowing the paternal grandfather to file objections to the petition in this case. Code Ann. § 74-412 (Ga.L.1941, pp. 300, 304), now Code Ann. § 74-411 (Ga.L.1977, pp. 201, 217, effective January 1, 1978); Hiott v. Duncan, 122 Ga.App. 563, 564, 178 S.E.2d 43. Although the record contains no transcript of the evidence presented at the hearing it is apparent from the findings of fact and conclusions of law entered by the trial court, that the interest of the paternal grandfather in seeing his blood line continue into the future has been erroneously injected into this case and considered by the trial court in reaching its decision, even though this could conceivably be in the best interest of the child so as to refuse the adoption under certain circumstances. The trial court has stated, "that this adoption would be a great disservice and injustice to (the paternal grandfather) since this child has a rich heritage in its name . . ." and that, "this adoption would in effect cut off the Mathis line and this terminates the Mathis name for this Mathis family." An abuse of discretion is further indicated by the trial court's statement that, "(t)his court feels that it is unconscionable to sever a family tie and terminate a blood line as is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moon v. State
...81. The issue of disqualification of the trial judge cannot be raised for the first time in the appellate court. Hester v. Mathis, 147 Ga.App. 257(1), 248 S.E.2d 538; see also Knight v. State, 143 Ga. 678, 683(8), 85 S.E. 915. The trial defense counsel raised no objection during trial to th......
-
Houston v. Houston, s. 60698
...See Lockey v. Bennett, 244 Ga. 339, 260 S.E.2d 56 (1979). Mead v. Owens, 149 Ga.App. 303, 254 S.E.2d 431 (1979); Hester v. Mathis, 147 Ga.App. 257, 248 S.E.2d 538 (1978). Code Ann. § 74-112, referred to as "The Grandparents' Bill of Rights," was amended 12 days after the trial court entered......
- Wabash Life Ins. Co. v. Jones
-
Brant v. Bazemore, 69064
...the Brants' adoption of the child, and not the erroneously injected issue of the Bazemores' visitation rights. See Hester v. Mathis, 147 Ga.App. 257, 248 S.E.2d 538 (1978). Judgment reversed in part and case remanded with direction in BIRDSONG, P.J., and BEASLEY, J., concur. ...