Rose v. Rose
Decision Date | 03 March 2014 |
Docket Number | No. S14F0181.,S14F0181. |
Citation | 755 S.E.2d 737,294 Ga. 719 |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Parties | ROSE v. ROSE. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Phyllis Renee Williams, Decatur, for appellant.
Daniele Colette Johnson, Atlanta, for appellee.
Bruce and Latosha Rose were married in 2003. They have one child who was born in 2007. The couple lived in Gwinnett County and the child attended school there until 2012 when the couple separated. After the separation, wife moved to Henry County to be near her sister's family and took the child with her. Shortly thereafter, wife filed a complaint for divorce against husband in Gwinnett County.
At a temporary hearing held in August 2012, husband agreed that wife would have primary physical custody of the child. A temporary order was entered giving primary physical custody to wife and stipulating that the child would attend school in wife's school district. The parties were given joint legal custody and directed to confer with one another on all matters pertaining to the well-being of the child. Following the entry of the temporary order, the child attended an elementary school in Henry County, the wife's school district.
A final hearing was held in December 2012 at which husband sought primary physical custody of the child. In this regard, husband expressed his concern for the child's education in Henry County, claiming that the elementary school that the child could attend in Gwinnett County is ranked 5th in the state, while the school the child attended in Henry County is ranked approximately 400th. Although he allowed that wife essentially was a good mother, husband took issue with the quality of the meals wife gave to the child. In this regard, husband claimed that he fed the child healthy, home cooked meals; but wife fed the child fast food, as well as processed, pre-packaged food, far too often. Husband also asserted that wife's work schedule required the child to attend an after school program; whereas he works from home several days a week and, therefore, he would be able to retrieve the child from school and spend time with him most afternoons. Finally, husband testified that the child behaved better in his presence than in the presence of wife and that after the child moved to Henry County he “started to talk back a lot more.”
Following the hearing, the trial court entered a final decree of divorce in which it awarded joint legal custody to both parties and primary physical custody to husband. The trial court did not make findings of facts and conclusions of law. Wife sought and we granted an application for discretionary appeal pursuant to this Court's Rule 34(4). This appeal followed.
1. Wife argues the trial court erred in awarding primary physical custody to husband because it focused on factors other than the best interest of the child. See generally Mock v. Mock, 258 Ga. 407, 369 S.E.2d 255 (1988) ( ). More specifically, wife asserts the trial court's custody decision was based only on the ground that husband's school district provides a better educational opportunity for the child. See generally Bisno v. Bisno, 238 Ga. 328, 232 S.E.2d 921 (1977) ( ); Fox v. Korucu, 315 Ga.App. 851, 854, 729 S.E.2d 16 (2012) ( ). We cannot accept this assertion.
Where the trial court exercises its discretion and awards custody of a child to one fit parent over the other fit parent, the appellate court will not interfere with that decision unless there is evidence the trial court clearly abused its discretion. Powell v. Powell, 277 Ga. 878, 596 S.E.2d 616 (2004); Welch v. Welch, 277 Ga. 808, 809, 596 S.E.2d 134 (2004). If there is any evidence to support the trial court's decision, it cannot be said there was an abuse of discretion. Id.
Anderson v. Anderson, 278 Ga. 713, 606 S.E.2d 251 (2004).
Contrary to wife's assertion, a review of the record provides ample evidence to support the award of physical custody to husband based on the best interest of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bridger v. Franze, A18A1230
..."[e]ach parent’s past performance and relative abilities for future performance of parenting responsibilities"); Rose v. Rose , 294 Ga. 719, 721 (1), 755 S.E.2d 737 (2014) (evidence supported trial court’s award of joint legal custody of a child to both parents, with primary physical custod......
-
McManus v. Johnson
...custody constitutes a final adjudication of the rights of the parties.(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Rose v. Rose , 294 Ga. 719, 721 (1), 755 S.E.2d 737 (2014) ; see also Pace v. Pace , 287 Ga. 899, 900-901, 700 S.E.2d 571 (2010) ; OCGA § 19-9-3 (e). In other words, a temporary custod......