9. Saxon v. Saxon, 207 Ga. App. 471, 428 S.E.2d 376 (1993).
The father petitioned for a change of custody arguing that the mother was unfit to have custody because she was in a meretricious relationship and because she had attempted to “poison the mind” of the parties’ child against the father. The father alleged that the mother showed the child the pleadings in the custody case and discussed the details of the case with the child in an attempt to alienate the child from the father. The mother stated that she showed the child the pleadings “to allay his concents about the proceedings.” 207 Ga. App. at 472. The trial coutt found that the wife’s actions rendered her unfit to have custody.
The Georgia Court of Appeals found that the trial court could properly reject the wife’s explanation for discussing the case with the child. However, the court found that the wife’s actions did not render her unfit. “[Tjhere is no evidence mat the mother’s discussion of the case with the child amounted to abuse of, neglect of, or inability to care for the child.” Id. The court of appeals then reversed the trial court’s custody decision and ordered that custody remain with the mother in keeping with the preference of the child, who was 15 years old at the time.
10. Chandler v. Chandler, 261 Ga. 598, 409 S.E.2d 203 (1991).
The father successfully petitioned for a transfer of custody of the parties’ child after the mother had removed the child from Georgia without notice and denied the father visitation, asserting that she was protecting the child from sexual abuse. In addition to transferring custody, the trial court severely limited the mother’s visitation lights, only allowing her visitation in accordance with the written agreement of the parties. This limitation was imposed based on the trial court’s concern that the mother may attempt to abduct the child.
The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the transfer of custody but found that the trial court abused its discretion by entering an order that effectively terminated the mother’s right to visit with the child. The court remanded the case so that appropriate visitation rights could be awarded to the mother, holding that “[ljess extreme arrangements, including limited and supervised visitation, could be instituted to satisfy the trial court’s concerns that [the mother] might abduct the child if granted visitation.” 261 Ga. at 599.
11. Arp v. Hammonds, 200 Ga. App. 715, 409 S.E.2d275 (1991).
The mother successfully petitioned for a change of custody based on the father’s interference with her visitation rights. The mother testified regarding the father’s actions including that the father induced her to sign a separation agreement giving him custody by promising to remain in the marital home, that he failed to keep her apprised of school and religious functions, that he would hang up the telephone while the mother was talking to the children and would not allow them to call her back for days, and that he refused to allow the mother to exercise all of her summer visitation with the children as provided in the parties’ agreement. The trial court found that the mother had established that a material change of circumstances existed and granted her petition
In a 5 to 4 decision, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the transfer of custody. The court concluded that the father’s refusal to allow summertime and telephonic visitation was sufficient to authorize a change in custody. Furthermore, the court found that the father’s pattern of violating the terms of the divorce decree would also justify a change in custody. The court summarized the evidence that supported the trial court’s decision to transfer custody to the mother as follows:
Based on the evidence, the trial judge could draw the reasonable inference that the types of behavior exhibited by the father towards the mother, which in large measure were contemptuous of court authority, and his negative attitude and overt antipathy towards the girls’ relationship with her, demonstrated by his repeated insulation of them from contact with her, adversely affected their natural relationship with their mother because of his influence on them. This could be deemed harmful to the young daughters, aged five and seven at the time of the order appealed from. He could also draw the reasonable inference that the father’s repeated interference with the mother’s participation in child -rearing, disserved their welfare. These support the conclusion that it was not in the little girls’ best interest to remain in this environment.
200 Ga. App. at 718.
12. Hyman v. Moldovan, 166 Ga. App. 891, 305 S.E.2d 648 (1983).
The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the father’s suit for alienation of affections for failing to state a claim. The father brought suit against the mother, her current husband, and her parents for conspiracy to commit the tort of alienation of affections, alleging that these parties had conspired to alienate the affections of his child. The court found that any such claim was abrogated by OCGA 51-1-17, which abolished the tort of alienation of affections. The court rejected the father’s position that this statute applied only to the alienation of a spouse’s affections.
13. Bull v. Bull, 243 Ga. 72, 252 S.E.2d 494 (1979).
The mother, who was awarded custody of the parties’ child, refused to comply with the divorce decree’s grant of visitation to the father. Under the terms of the decree, the father was entitled to have the child for two weeks during the summer. The trial court entered an order requiring the mother to surrender the child to the father for his summer visitation; however, neither the mother nor child could be located. Eight days later, the trial court ordered that custody be transferred from the mother to the father. The mother was subsequently held in contempt for refusing to comply with both orders.
The trial court’s decision to transfer custody to the father was affirmed by the Georgia Supreme Court. The court found that the transfer was justified because of the mother’s refusal to allow the father to exercise his visitation rights. The court held that “[fjhere is sufficient evidence in the record of the repeated denial of the non-custodial parent’s visitation rights to authorize a change of custody.” 243 Ga. at 72.
(TO BE CONTINUED…)
Perrotta, Cahn & Associates represents clients throughout Georgia and the Southeastern United States. They have offices conveniently located throughout Georgia. Attorney Tony Perrotta has personally won over 1000 custody cases on behalf of dad’s. To schedule a free consultation with a lawyer at our firm, call us toll-free at 866-382-8900 or visit us online at www.northgafamilylawyer.com.
We have offices in: Cartersville, Calhoun, Dalton and Dallas
Serving clients in: Bartow, Floyd, Paulding, Cherokee, Polk, Whitfield, Douglas, Cobb, Fulton, Chatham, and all of Northwest Georgia.
_______________________________________________________________
GOVERNING JURISDICTION
1. LEGISLATION
Ga. Code Ann. • ■ 19-9-1, 19-9-3 (2005)
2. DIGESTS
Georgia Digest
“Child Custody” 47-51, 57, 58, 68, 77, 78, 82, 85, 179, 181, 187-190, 196, 197, 201, 202, 204, 207, 261, 468, 469, 474, 558-560, 564, 566, 568, 569,965-992
updated on March 9, 2005 via Westlaw
3. OTHER
Westlaw: GA-CS
((alienat! or poison! or brain-wash!) Is (child! or son or daughter or parent or husband or wife or mother or father or grand-parent or grand-mother or grand-father)) and (custody or visit!)
NATIONAL
1. ENCYCLOPEDIAS
24A Am. Jut. 2d Divorce and Separation 1 995 (2004)
2. A.L.R.
Debra E. Wax, Interference by Custodian of Child with Noncustodial Parent’s Visitation
Rights as Ground for Change of Custody, 28 A.L.R.4th 9
Jay M. Zitter, Custodial Parent’s Relocation as Grounds for Change of Custody, 70
A.L.R.5th 377
3. LEGAL PERIODICALS
Carol S. Bruch, Parental Alienation Syndrome and Parental Alienation: Getting It Wrong in Child Custody Cases, 35 Fam. L.Q. 527 (2001)
northgafamilylawyer 