DocketNumber: A19A0502
Judges: Goss, McFadden
Filed Date: 6/19/2019
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
On appeal from a trial court's order modifying custody in favor of the mother of the two children at issue, the father asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the mother's counterclaim for visitation, awarding child support to the mother, denying the father's offer of proof at the final hearing, and awarding the mother attorney fees. We find no error and affirm.
Under the parties' 2013 divorce decree entered in DeKalb Superior Court, the parents had joint legal custody of the children, with the mother having primary physical custody and neither parent paying child support. These proceedings began when the mother, Jennifer Lewis, filed a petition for modification of visitation and child support in DeKalb County Superior Court, where the father continued to reside. The father, Todd O'Brien, answered and counterclaimed for attorney fees and then for modification and child support. When the mother moved to dismiss the father's counterclaim under OCGA § 19-9-23 (b), the father voluntarily dismissed it.
In the meantime, the mother moved with the children to Forsyth County. The trial court granted the father's application for an injunction and ordered the children returned to school in DeKalb County. When the mother amended her petition in DeKalb Superior Court to dismiss her request for change in visitation, the father filed his own petition for modification of custody and child support in Forsyth County. Because the only issue remaining in the DeKalb County proceeding was the mother's claim for modification of child support, the parties moved the DeKalb court to transfer the mother's case to Forsyth County and jointly moved the Forsyth court to consolidate the cases. The DeKalb court transferred the mother's case, and the Forsyth court ordered the cases consolidated.
The mother then filed an amended answer, including a counterclaim, in which she moved to modify visitation under the former version of OCGA § 19-9-3 (b), which authorized a trial court to modify visitation "on the motion of any party or on the motion of the judge ... without the necessity of any showing of a change in any material conditions and circumstances of either party or the child ... once in each two-year period following the date of entry of the judgment," or more frequently if a material change has occurred. The father moved to dismiss the motion on the ground that under OCGA § 19-9-23, the mother was required to bring her counterclaim as a separate action in DeKalb County, where the father still lived. After a hearing, the trial court denied the father's motion, noting that he had filed his own modification action in Forsyth County, that the cases had been consolidated there on joint motion of the parties, and that the court was empowered therein to take account of the children's best interests.
A final hearing was held in January 2018. During the father's cross-examination of the mother, the trial court sustained the mother's relevancy objection as to a dispute between herself and her nephew and refused the father's proffer as to these family difficulties. On January 31, the court entered a final order increasing the mother's parenting time and awarding her $ 2,349 in monthly child support. The court also vacated its previous injunction requiring the mother to return the children to their DeKalb school. The father then missed his February 2018 child support *743payment, in light of which the trial court excepted the child support provisions of the final order from any supersedeas. After a second hearing, no transcript of which appears in the appellate record, the court awarded the mother $ 30,000 in attorney fees under OCGA §§ 19-6-15 and 19-9-3 (g).
1. The father first asserts that the trial court should have granted his motion to dismiss the mother's counterclaim to modify visitation. We disagree.
The current version of OCGA § 19-9-23 provides in relevant part:
(a) [A]ny complaint seeking to obtain a change of legal custody of the child shall be brought as a separate action in the county of residence of the legal custodian of the child .
(b) A complaint by [a] legal custodian seeking a change of legal custody or visitation rights shall be brought as a separate action in compliance with Article VI, Section II, Paragraph VI of the Constitution of this state.
(c) No complaint specified in subsection (a) or (b) of this Code section shall be made: (1) [a]s a counterclaim or in any other manner in response to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking to enforce a child custody order; or (2) [i]n response to any other action or motion seeking to enforce a child custody order. ...
(Emphasis supplied.)
We understand " '[t]he plain meaning of OCGA § 19-9-23 [to be] that an action ... to modify visitation with a minor child must be brought in the county of residence of the custodial parent.' " Rogers v. Baudet ,
Although the dissent disagrees with this conclusion, none of the cases cited there involve a situation where, as here, the parties already shared legal custody and agreed to *744submit to the jurisdiction of the court in a preexisting and ongoing custody dispute before that court. In Rogers , for example, a father living in Kentucky had sole custody of the child at issue and had dismissed his Georgia custody action, after which the mother brought her counterclaim in Georgia, which was properly dismissed.
For these reasons, the trial court did not err when it denied the father's motion to dismiss the mother's counterclaim for visitation, which was brought in the venue consented to by both parties.
2. The father does not assert that the evidence does not support the trial court's award of child support; rather, he asserts only that the court erred in taking up the subject of child support because the mother had voluntarily dismissed her counterclaim for child support in the DeKalb action. As explained in Division 1, however, the trial court properly entertained the subjects of visitation and child support in the Forsyth County action, and thus did not err in considering "the best interest of the child and what will best promote the child's welfare and happiness and to make [its] award [of child support] accordingly." OCGA § 19-9-3 (a) (2).
3. Although the father asserts that the trial court erred in excluding his offer of proof at the final hearing, he has never explained either the content of his offer or how that content would have assisted the court in understanding the "area of inquiry ... related to [the mother's] impulsivity, reckless behavior, and anger issues." See Finch v. Brown ,
4. As noted above, because the trial court was authorized to consider the questions of child support and modification, it was also authorized to award the mother her reasonable attorney fees under either OCGA §§ 19-6-15 (k) or 19-9-3 (g), both of which were cited in the trial court's award.
No transcript of the fee hearing has been included in the appellate record, and the father has not asserted a lack of either proper findings or evidence to support the award, which must therefore stand as rendered. Taylor v. Taylor ,
5. Lewis's motion for a frivolous appeal penalty is denied. See Rule 41 (b) (no motion shall be filed in the body of a brief).
Judgment affirmed.
McMillian, J., concurs. McFadden, P.J., concurs in Divisions 3, 4, and 5, concurs in the judgment as to Division 2, and dissents as to Division 1.*
* THIS OPINION IS PHYSICAL PRECEDENT ONLY. COURT OF APPEALS RULE 33.2 (a).
The mother had previously submitted billing records showing that she had incurred more than $ 75,000 in attorney fees.
We note that the new version of OCGA § 19-9-23, which was signed into law on May 7, 2019, and takes effect on July 1, 2019, removes the current requirement that a modification complaint be brought "as a separate action in the county of residence of [a] legal custodian" and explicitly authorizes "a counterclaim for modification of legal custody or physical custody in response to a complaint" for modification of the same. OCGA § 19-9-23 (a), (d) (effective July 1, 2019), 2019 Ga. L. 281.
Indeed, this father could have filed his action in either DeKalb or Forsyth County because both parents shared legal custody. We also note that the father's action did not make any specific request as to custody, child support, or visitation.
The statutes authorize the award of "reasonable and necessary attorney's fees" and "reasonable attorney's fees" in child support and custody matters respectively. OCGA §§ 19-6-15 (k) (5), 19-9-3 (g).