Turman v. Boleman
| Citation | 510 S.E.2d 532,235 Ga. App. 243 |
| Decision Date | 12 November 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. A98A1712.,A98A1712. |
| Parties | TURMAN v. BOLEMAN. |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Law Offices of John F. Lyndon, Walter R. Finch III, Athens, for appellant.
Fitzpatrick & Camp, Barry L. Fitzpatrick, Danielsville, for appellee.
Sheila Mae Turman appeals from the denial of her motion to hold her ex-husband, Orville Joseph Boleman, in contempt for denying Turman visitation rights to their child. While the visitation provision was contrary to public policy and therefore unenforceable, its plain language did authorize Boleman's conduct and precluded a finding of contempt at this time. We affirm the trial court's denial of Turman's motion for contempt.
Turman and Boleman were divorced on November 13, 1996. Their settlement agreement, which was incorporated into the final judgment and decree, provided that Boleman would have custody of their minor child. The agreement gave Turman certain specified visitation rights away from the father's residence "on the condition [that] at no time shall [the child] be in the presence of William `Larry' Little or any other African-American male except that [Turman] shall not be in contempt of court if she has casual contact with any African-American male other than William `Larry' Little." After Turman married Kenneth Turman, an African-American male, Boleman refused to allow Turman to visit with the child away from Boleman's residence. Turman moved to hold Boleman in contempt for refusing to allow her to exercise her visitation rights. At the hearing on the contempt motion, Turman argued that the provision in the settlement agreement conditioning her visitation rights upon the child's having no contact with any African-American male was unenforceable.
The trial court improperly upheld the validity of the visitation provision which prohibited the child's contact with any African-American males. This provision is unenforceable as against public policy. "The only authentic and admissible evidence of public policy of a State is its constitution, laws, and judicial decisions." Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Durden, 9 Ga.App. 797, 800(3), 72 S.E. 295 (1911). The visitation provision here violated the express public policy against racial classification and the public policy encouraging a child's contact with his noncustodial parent.
The visitation provision of the divorce decree sanctioned arbitrary racial classification in determining visitation rights in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the state and federal constitutions. The trial court held that the provision was enforceable because it was a matter of private contract. However, after that private agreement was incorporated into the trial court's order, enforcing the private agreement became state action. "Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect." Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429, 104 S.Ct. 1879, 80 L.Ed.2d 421 (1984). The courts of this State cannot sanction such blatant racial prejudice, especially where it also interferes with the rights of a child in the parent/child relationship. The agreement between the parties clearly violated the State's public policy to promote the best interests of the child. "It is the express policy of this state to encourage that a minor child has continuing contact with parents and grandparents who have shown the ability to act in the best interest of the child and to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Park-Poaps v. Poaps
...and its decision will be upheld if there is any evidence to support it." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Turman v. Boleman , 235 Ga. App. 243, 244, 510 S.E.2d 532 (1998).Construed in favor of the trial court's ruling, the evidence adduced at the hearing reflects that in late 2015, the m......
-
Konvalinka v. Chattanooga-Hamil. Cty Hosp.
...the "plain and ordinary meaning" standard to interpret orders assures that litigants will be treated fairly. See Turman v. Boleman, 235 Ga.App. 243, 510 S.E.2d 532, 534 (1998); Campen v. Featherstone, 150 N.C.App. 692, 564 S.E.2d 616, 619 (2002); see also State v. Phillips, 138 S.W.3d at Al......
-
Mongerson v. Mongerson
...to participate in the raising of their children (OCGA § 19-9-3(d)), and constitutes an abuse of discretion. See Turman v. Boleman, 235 Ga.App. 243, 244, 510 S.E.2d 532 (1998) (abuse of discretion to refuse to permit mother to exercise visitation rights with child in the presence of any Afri......
-
Norman v. Norman
...homosexual partners and their friends,” which was “an arbitrary classification based on sexual orientation”); Turman v. Boleman, 235 Ga.App. 243, 243–44, 510 S.E.2d 532 (1998) (finding unenforceable a settlement-agreement provision that prohibited mother's exercise of visitation rights “in ......
-
Domestic Relations - Barry B. Mcgough and Gregory R. Miller
...514 S.E.2d 443 (1999). 112. Id. at 301, 514 S.E.2d at 444. 113. Id., 514 S.E.2d at 444-45. 114. Id. at 302-03, 514 S.E.2d at 445. 115. 235 Ga. App. 243, 510 S.E.2d 532 (1998). 116. Id. at 243, 510 S.E.2d at 533. 117. Id. at 244, 510 S.E.2d at 534. 118. Id. at 245, 510 S.E.2d at 534. 119. 26......