Taylor v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 18 February 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 28442,28442 |
| Citation | 231 Ga. 742,204 S.E.2d 129 |
| Parties | Frances Louise Grubbs TAYLOR v. Thomas Paul TAYLOR. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The order complained of was a final judgment.
2. The order did not warrant the provisions as to visitation of the children.
3. Jurisdiction to enter the order was not conferred upon the court.
4. The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.
Byrd, Groover & Buford, Denmark Groover, Jr., Macon, for appellant.
Carlisle & Chason, Edwin A. Carlisle, Cairo, for appellee.
This appeal is from an order entered in an action in the nature of a habeas corpus proceeding seeking the change of custody of minor children. The action was by Thomas Paul Taylor, the father of the children, against Frances Grubbs Taylor, their mother, in the Superior Court of Grady County.
The father's complaint alleged in essence that subsequent to the decree of September 19, 1972, granting a divorce to the parties and awarding custody of the children to the mother with certain visitation rights to the father, there have been many changes in conditions affecting the welfare of the children. These were essentially alleged to include the mother's physical violence when the father attempted to exercise his visitation rights, threats in the children's presence, removing the children to another county against the children's wishes, conducting a hate campaign against the father in the presence of the children, and impossibility of further visitation because she will not allow anyone else to pick up the children.
The mother's answer denied the foregoing and other essential allegations, asserted that the father was not entitled to custody of the children, that their removal was beneficial to them for stated reasons and that there has been no change in condition since the original decree that would justify the court in removing them from her.
A hearing was conducted and the trial court entered an order which was in substance as follows: 'The above stated matter coming on to be heard on (named date) relative to changes in conditions affecting the welfare of the minor children of the parties, and after hearing all evidence from both sides and same considered by the court; the court reserving until a later date its decision relative to the changes in conditions affecting the welfare of said minor children authorizing the court to change or revise the custody of said minor children of the parties.
'The parties hereto and their attorneys having consented and agreed in open court to the hereinafter visitation scheduled adjustments and to abide by and be bound by the following:'
The order provided that the father shall have the two children involved visit with him every other weekend as therein defined. It established for such visitations a procedure for picking up and return of the children at Shellman, Georgia, a halfway point between the residences of the parties. It also recited that during the summer the father shall have one of the children visit with him for two three-week periods and the other child for two four-week periods. It also allowed the father to deduct from support payments in accordance with the original decree.
It concluded with 'So ordered,' giving the date.
The appeal is from this order and presents three enumerations of error.
The appellee has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal which will be hereinafter dealt with.
1. The first enumeration of error is that 'The court erred in including a provision in its order that it reserved until a later date a decision relative to the changes in conditions affecting the minor children and attempting to reserve the right to change or revise custody.'
We have concluded that this enumeration of error is valid.
The record now on file in this court manifests a conscientious effort on the part of the able trial judge to eliminate, or at least to minimize, the difficulties then existing between the parties as to custody, and particularly as to the visitation problems.
However, what he attempted to do was not authorized by law.
As shown above, the order, after reciting a hearing relative to changes in conditions affecting the welfare of the children and a consideration of the evidence from all sides, stated that the court reserved 'until a later date its decision relative to the changes in conditions affecting the welfare of said minor children authorizing the court to change or revise the custody of said children.'
It is clear to us that by the foregoing provision the trial court undertook by a temporary order in a habeas corpus proceeding brought by the father against the mother, seeking to change the previous decree because of material changes in circumstances,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buck v. Buck
...Martin v. Hendon, 224 Ga. 221(1), 160 S.E.2d 893 (1968); Bragg v. Bragg, 224 Ga. 733(1), 164 S.E.2d 560 (1968); Taylor v. Taylor, 231 Ga. 742, 743(1), 204 S.E.2d 129 (1974)." Simpson v. Moon, 238 Ga. 152, 153, 231 S.E.2d 754, 755 (1977). The fact that the trial judge stated that was enterin......
-
Hopkins v. Hopkins
...232 Ga. 692, 208 S.E.2d 496 (1974); Johnson v. Johnson, 230 Ga. 204, 196 S.E.2d 394 (1973). The appellant cites Taylor v. Taylor, 231 Ga. 742(3) 204 S.E.2d 129 (1974) as being in conflict with the above decisions. We disagree. Taylor involved the question of jurisdiction of the subject matt......
-
Simpson v. Moon, 31698
...Martin v. Hendon, 224 Ga. 221(1), 160 S.E.2d 893 (1968); Bragg v. Bragg, 224 Ga. 733(1), 164 S.E.2d 560 (1968); Taylor v. Taylor, 231 Ga. 742, 743(1), 204 S.E.2d 129 (1974). The attempt by the trial judge in the present case by the language hereinbefore quoted to retain jurisdiction of the ......
-
Gay v. Gay, s. 56658
...continuing jurisdiction over the question of custody once a final decree of divorce has been entered. See, e. g., Taylor v. Taylor, 231 Ga. 742, 204 S.E.2d 129 (1974); Buck v. Buck, 238 Ga. 540, 233 S.E.2d 792 (1977); Banister v. Banister, 240 Ga. 513, 241 S.E.2d 247 (1978). These cases do ......