Stanley v. Edwards

• Decision Date: 15 March 2022
• Docket Number: A21A1500
• Citation: 363 Ga.App. 331,870 S.E.2d 911
• Parties: STANLEY v. EDWARDS.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

363 Ga.App. 331

870 S.E.2d 911

STANLEY

v.EDWARDS.

A21A1500

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

March 15, 2022

Sherry Herrera Campbell, Warner Robins, for Appellant.

James Curtis Garner, Dublin, Treutlen County, for Appellee.

Doyle, Presiding Judge.

Tiffany Stanley ("the mother") appeals from the trial court's order granting Quinton Edwards's ("the father") motion for modification of child custody and child support regarding the couple's two children. Stanley argues that the trial court (1) abused its discretion by granting the motion without evidence of a material change in circumstances; (2) abused its discretion by disregarding the older child's election to live with the mother; (3) abused its discretion regarding evidentiary rulings; and (4) erred by failing to include a start date for child support in its final order. For the reasons that follow, we reverse.

This Court reviews for an abuse of discretion an order modifying or declining to modify child custody and child support, and evidentiary findings will be affirmed if there is any evidence to support them.¹

The record shows that in September 2018, the father filed a complaint for modification of child custody and child support. The complaint attached a copy of a final order on a petition for custody and visitation from June 2013, which showed that Q. E. was born November 30, 2006, and C. E. was born October 27, 2009. The mother was granted custody with the father having 48 hours of visitation every other weekend. In his complaint, the father alleged that he was seeking primary physical custody of the children because the mother

has failed to discharge her duties and has not taken action for the furtherance of the children's well-being. Specifically, she has failed to support the needs of the minor children and allowed the children to be around immoral behavior such as partying and drugs. Furthermore, [the mother] has allowed numerous live-in boyfriends to be around the children, who have been negatively impacted by this.²

The mother initially filed a pro se answer denying these allegations, and later, she hired an attorney who filed another answer on her behalf. She also counterclaimed for an upward modification of child support, arguing that the father frequently had failed to exercise portions of his visitation since 2013, causing her to expend more resources on care of the children. On November 15, 2019, Q. E. filed an election to live with the mother.

At the bench trial in March 2020, Q. E.’s seventh grade language arts teacher testified that she had taught him through the 2019-2020 school year, and she mainly interacted with the mother until recently. She did meet with the father the week before the bench trial, and she had spoken to him once over the phone prior to that. As for Q. E.’s performance, the teacher testified that

[Q. E.] is a very polite, likable young man. Pleasure to have in class. He is a typical seventh grade little boy. His grades are average. He does really well, I think, in math from the way [another teacher] talks. For me, he does well. He has a C average right now, but he doesn't love to read and probably could improve on that a little bit. But, you know, he's like any of my other students. They are talkative on some days. You know, they just have their days. But he is just a very good student. He's a pleasure to have in class.

The teacher had experienced no issues with Q. E. having been absent from school, and she denied knowing about any referral of him to juvenile court for school absences.³ She noted that his grades at that time were 71 in language arts, 100 in science, 82 in math, and 72 in social studies, which were average grades for her students. When challenged by the father's attorney, she explained that eighty percent of the students at the school were two or more grade levels behind in reading. When she was given a copy of Q. E.’s sixth grade end-of-year test scores, she admitted that they were slightly lower than some of her students, but explained that the entire seventh grade was currently getting an extra hour of language arts to remediate those students who were behind. She reiterated that his scores were "slightly below average, but as I said, our population as a whole is below the state average." Moreover, Q. E. was showing growth in his reading level and had made improvements over the year, and he was involved in the school-wide reading-support program. The teacher testified that Q. E. was "a solid C student. He is below reading level[,] and I feel like the work that [Q. E.] gives me is the best that he can give me. I do. I have seen improvement in his reading skills[,] and I don't foresee [Q. E.] failing a class at all."

She did not notice any problem with Q. E. being absent, nor did she believe that Q. E. had a behavior problem; she denied speaking to the father about Q. E. being disrespectful. She had contacted both parents about a single occasion of Q. E. falling asleep in class, which she testified was not outside of the norm for students in her class as it included the students’ lunchtime, and she had not had that problem with Q. E. again.

The teacher experienced a single instance of having been unable to reach the mother through her contact information, which was later corrected, and had otherwise been in contact with the mother fairly regularly and had not had any issue with her engagement.

The attempt to contact was made about missing a weekly reading log, which was a "very regular" occurrence with all her students, not just Q. E.⁴ The teacher said that during the single instance in which she had met with the father, the meeting was set up without her knowledge until the father showed up that day, and she was not aware if the mother knew of the meeting.⁵ As for Q. E.’s chattiness, the teacher explained that she was able to remedy the situation by separating the chatty students from each other.

The children's stepmother shares two other children with the father — a one-year-old and six-year-old — who are not the subject of this litigation. The stepmother was prohibited by the 2013 parenting plan from having direct contact with the mother or from transporting Q. E. and C. E. to and from visitation. She testified that if Q. E. and C. E. came to live at the father's home, she would work with the children on their school work, but she did not currently do so because they "don't bring it." She testified that when the mother had surgery, the father and stepmother kept Q. E. and C. E. for a week, and they helped with homework at that time.

The stepmother also testified that she threatened to "spank [Q. E.’s] butt" for speaking to her in a way that she did not like. She also called the police to come to their home after she disciplined Q. E. for pushing her six-year-old to the ground because she was afraid that the maternal grandmother would report her for punishing Q. E.⁶ She admitted grabbing Q. E. by the arm, but she denied pushing him up against a door as Q. E. apparently had reported to others. Even though she allegedly witnessed Q. E. pushing her six-year-old, she immediately left the children alone again and went to a different room, and five to ten minutes later, Q. E. brought her his cell phone so she could speak to his grandmother, who was asking about the stepmother's treatment of Q. E.

The stepmother testified that the mother did not tell them about C. E.’s junior Beta Club induction. She did not state why the father did not get this information directly from the school, which she admitted he could have done in some instances.

The father testified that he worked 16 days out the month in the month prior to the trial, and he worked the swing shift, which could cause an erratic schedule. He testified that he received his schedule for one year at a time, subject to changes to cover absences. Additionally, when complaining about how the mother did not notify him about C. E.’s Junior Beta Club induction or a science event, he testified that, "[m]y job clearly tells us if you need some time off to do anything, just give us an advanced notice, so you can have your time. Give me a week in advance. If you need next Thursday off, that will give us enough time to get you coverage[,] or you can set up a personal [day] to where you can have that day off." The father did not testify why this system of leave would not have allowed him to schedule around his 2 monthly 48-hour visitation periods. The father admitted that he smoked and used a "vape," but he denied offering his vape or any alcohol to the children. The father denied allowing the stepmother to physically discipline Q. E. and C. E., and he denied any incidents of violence in the home.

The mother testified that she works 40 hours a week at a daycare center, and prior to leaving for the day, she got the children ready for school and frequently drove them there unless they wanted to get up early for the bus. Both children are in after school programs. The mother conceded that she failed to tell the father about two specific events of C. E.’s but testified that she had frequently told the father about events, and he did not participate, nor did he get the information from the school himself.

On cross-examination, the mother was confronted by several pictures posted on her social media accounts that showed her with friends or alone, in short dresses or tight clothing; smoking from a hookah, which she testified contained flavored tobacco; in one instance, smoking a marijuana cigarette; and in one instance making an obscene hand gesture with her middle finger. Many of the pictures had captions with obvious song lyrics containing curse words or other statements containing cursing or slang. The mother admitted that she smoked marijuana in the instance pictured, but she denied using the substance regularly and produced a negative drug test. The father presented two pictures of men connected to her, one in which she was also pictured, and one which contained pictures of the...