Katz v. Katz, S94A0859
| Decision Date | 21 July 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. S94A0859,S94A0859 |
| Parties | KATZ v. KATZ. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Jeffrey B. Bogart, Susan A. Hurst, Atlanta, James W. Penland, Decatur, for Monica F. Katz.
Michael Weinstock, John M. Bruce, Weinstock & Scavo, P.C., Atlanta, for Steven D. Katz.
We granted discretionary appeal in this divorce case to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion regarding the provisions of the final judgment pertaining to visitation in the event the mother moves. We find that it did, and reverse and remand. 1
By the terms of the final judgment and decree, Dr. and Mrs. Katz were given joint legal custody of their two minor children, with Mrs. Katz having physical custody. Dr. Katz was given visitation with the children every first and third weekend of the month, such visitation beginning at 6:00 p.m. on Thursday and ending at 7:00 p.m. on Sunday, and also visitation on each and every Thursday from 10:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. Because the trial court had been informed that Mrs. Katz might move to New Jersey, it set forth alternative provisions governing the responsibility for the pick-up and return of the children. In the event that Mrs. Katz stays in the metropolitan Atlanta area, Dr. Katz or his family members will be responsible for the pick-up and return of the children. On the other hand, if Mrs. Katz moves out of the Atlanta area, she would be responsible for delivering the children to and picking them up from Dr. Katz's residence. Because the children are young, the court made it Mrs. Katz's obligation to travel with the children; even when the children are old enough to travel alone, Mrs. Katz will still have to travel with them since under the decree the point of delivery and pick-up is to be the Atlanta airport. Finally, Mrs. Katz is to bear the cost of transporting herself and the children to and from Atlanta, with Dr. Katz reimbursing her for fifty percent of the costs of the children's, but not her, round-trip transportation.
The trial court abused its discretion in placing such burdensome responsibilities on Mrs. Katz should she decide to move from Atlanta. Nothing in the record supports the need for these provisions. They not only present formidable obstacles to and severe restrictions on Mrs. Katz with respect to the expense and inconvenience of frequent travel, the opportunity to move, and the ability to secure and maintain employment, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Park-Poaps v. Poaps
...and fashion the visitation accordingly." In the Interest of R. E. W. , 220 Ga. App. at 864, 471 S.E.2d 6. See Katz v. Katz , 264 Ga. 440, 440–441, 445 S.E.2d 531 (1994) (concluding that visitation provisions that "subject[ed] the children to a rigorous travel schedule which [was] likely to ......
-
Moore v. Moore-McKinney, A09A0262.
...of custody." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Facey v. Facey, 281 Ga. 367, 369(2), 638 S.E.2d 273 (2006). See also Katz v. Katz, 264 Ga. 440, 441, 445 S.E.2d 531 (1994) ("visitation is an integral part of custody"); Nodvin v. Nodvin, 235 Ga. 708, 221 S.E.2d 404 (1975); Daugherty v. Murph......
-
Norman v. Norman
...have a deleterious effect on the children beyond that normally associated with divorce or a parent's remarriage”); Katz v. Katz, 264 Ga. 440, 440, 445 S.E.2d 531 (1994) (holding that trial court abused its discretion “regarding the provisions of the final judgment pertaining to visitation i......
-
R.E.W., In Interest of
...including the possibility of interference with school and other activities, and fashion the visitation accordingly. See Katz v. Katz, 264 Ga. 440, 445 S.E.2d 531 (1994). Judgment reversed and case remanded with BEASLEY, C.J., and RUFFIN, J., concur. * Justice Carley's dissenting opinion is ......