Shore v. Shore, 41099
| Decision Date | 23 July 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 41099,41099 |
| Citation | 318 S.E.2d 57,253 Ga. 183 |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
| Parties | SHORE v. SHORE. |
Timothy N. Skidmore, Leslie P. George, Atlanta, for Laurence Edward shore.
Randolph A. Mayer, Mayer & Nations, Atlanta, for Linda Carol Shore.
Appellant father filed an action for change of custody in August, 1981, alleging a substantial change in conditions affecting the welfare of the minor child. The trial court referred the matter to the juvenile court for investigation and recommendations. The investigation was completed by November, 1982, and the juvenile court probation officer recommended that custody be changed to the father. The parties filed letter briefs with the court in December. In June, 1983, there having been no ruling by the trial court, the father obtained a rule nisi for a hearing in July to present new evidence. Two days before the scheduled hearing, in the course of a hearing on a motion to compel, the trial court cancelled the rule nisi hearing and declined to hear any new evidence. The court based its ruling on the need for a speedy resolution of the case. The court ruled in November, 1983, denying the change of custody to the father.
On appeal the father contends the court erred in not allowing new evidence. He asserts that this evidence would have shown serious emotional and psychological deterioration of the child during the pendency of the suit. As this court found in Westmoreland v. Westmoreland, 243 Ga. 77, 79, 252 S.E.2d 496 (1979), "the trial court must consider all facts and conditions which present themselves up to the time of rendering the judgment and not merely facts and conditions which occur prior to the filing of the petition." We adhere to the rule that where the issue is a material change in conditions affecting the welfare of a child, it is error to refuse to hear any evidence which might have some bearing upon that issue. Where the welfare of a child is involved, relevant information must be received up until the very time that the court rules.
We reverse the judgment of the trial court because of the court's failure to receive evidence, and we remand the case for a hearing on the evidence which was disallowed and any other more recent evidence which may be relevant to the issue of this child's condition. We therefore do not reach the issue of whether custody should have been given to the father.
Because of the need to act quickly in the interest of the child, we are deciding this case in an expedited manner even though this appeal was only recently filed and argued. This court's term will soon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Murphy v. Murphy
...Murphy argues that the trial court entered the order after denying her the right to present evidence in violation of Shore v. Shore, 253 Ga. 183, 318 S.E.2d 57 (1984). She correctly asserts that the trial court ended the hearing for the day—past 6:00 p.m.—and entered the order ten days late......
-
Coppedge v. Coppedge
...all facts and conditions which present themselves up to the time of rendering a judgment" on child custody, see Shore v. Shore, 253 Ga. 183, 184, 318 S.E.2d 57 (1984), he merely speculates, based on the absence in the final order of a discussion of the information set forth in these motions......
-
Stuckey v. Richardson
...make the rules includes the concomitant power to suspend the rules in an appropriate case such as the one before us." Shore v. Shore, 253 Ga. 183, 184, 318 S.E.2d 57 (1984). 1. The motion to dismiss the appeal is 2. Appellants enumerate the trial court's order as erroneous on the ground tha......
-
Dennis v. Dennis
...the very time that the court rules,” a trial court errs when it refuses to consider that information before ruling. Shore v. Shore, 253 Ga. 183, 184, 318 S.E.2d 57 (1984). Here, the trial court failed to consider Billy Joe's allegations except as inadequately pled and dismissed his new moti......
-
Historical Antecedents of Challenges Facing the Georgia Appellate Courts
...(at least) may suspend the rule against making decisions other than reconsideration in the last fifteen days of a term. Shore v. Shore, 318 S.E.2d 57, 59 (Ga. 1984). The Supreme Court may also extend the term by order for a particular case. Katz v. Katz, 445 S.E.2d 531, 531 n.1 (Ga. 1994).1......