1 At tim e of the hearing, the chi ldren were 13 a nd 10. THI RD DIVI SION BA RN ES , P. J ., BOG GS and B RANC H, JJ. N OTIC E: Motionsfor r econs ider

ation m ust be physic ally received

in ou r cle rk’s office w ithin ten days of the

date of dec ision to bedeem ed tim ely f iled. http:/ /www .gaapp eals.us/ru les/ July 11, 2014



# In the Co urt o f A pp eals of G eo rgia A14A0609. MO RGAN v. FORDHAM . B OGGS , Ju dge. Fo llow in g t he Ja nuary 20 05 d ivorce o f Venus M organ a nd D avid Ford ham, Morganwas awa rded sol e physi cal cu stodyof t he co up les ’ c hild re n a nd jo intly shar ed legal custo dy of the children with Fordham. In 20 13 , t he tria l co urt de te rmin ed tha t it
was in the ch il dren’s best interest to give Fordha m physica l custod y of the children, and Morganappeals. 1 Becau se i t appe ars f rom th e tri al court ’s order th at it m odi f

i ed cust ody ba sed up on an

err oneou s th eory

of l aw, we vacat e th e tri al cour t’s orde r and remand thi s case to th e tri al cou rt f or consi derati on of a ll fac to rs re qu ire d t o m od ify custo dy.2

On Feb ruary 22, 2012, Fordham f il ed a petiti on f

or modi fi cati on of c us to dy in whi ch he alle ge d a su bs ta ntia l ch an ge in circumsta nces and speci f i cal l y conten ded th at M organ us ed c orpo ral punishment inappro priately, ha d put the eldes t minor child out of the home on se ve r al occasi ons, and t hat Morgan ’s new husban d was i ncarcerat ed and woul d be re si di ngi n the sam e hom e wit h the children u po n h i s r el ea se . On December

5, 2012, Fordham f

il ed a moti on f

or cont empt an d amended h is cu stody modi fi cati on pe titio n. Fo rd ha m c om pla in ed th at Morg an was in contem pt of th e di vor ce decre e i n that

sh e h ad w illfully d en ied him vi si tat i on wi thhi s chi l dren , an d al so al l eged that Morgan had medically n eglected the oldest chil d. On Ap ril 22, 2013, th e tri al cour t h el d a hearingand af

ter ward enter ed an o rder stating that “ [a]fter c onside ring the evidenc e, including the gu ardi an ad li tem ’s repo rt, and the law, t

hi s Court f

in ds that it is i n th e best i nt erest

of th e parti es’ mi

nor chi l dren for M r. Ford ham to ha ve sol e phy si calcust ody. ” The t ri al cour t al so ord eredMorgan to pay chi l d supp ort , an d f

ur th er ordered

th at t he ch i l dren

were notto v i si t Morg an’s
curre nt husban d in

pri son, or

upon his release “be arou nd t hi s man atany tim e, un less this Court

modi f i es thi s pr ovision in

an orde r.” N ow here in the trial court’s order, how ever, do es it ref

er t o th e l egal

requ i rem ent

f or m ateri al chan ges in conditions a nd ci rcumst ances substan

ti all y af fecting th e in

terest and welf are of th e chi l d. See Todd v.2 W e note that M organ a ttache d se veral exhibits to her ap pellate b rief, including

a “ No tarized C hil d Supp ort Arrea rage S tateme nt.” B ut pursua nt to C ou rt o f Ap pe als R ule 24 (g) , “ [d ]o cu me nts at ta ch ed to an ap pe llate br ief, whi ch h ave n ot bee n cer ti f i ed by th e cl erk of

th e tr i al co urt as a p ar t o f the ap pe llat e r ec or d a nd for w ar de d t o t his Court, shall n ot be considered on appea l.” As this d ocume nt wa s not c ertified by the clerk of t he tria l court

as p art of

the appellat e record, we can cannot consi der it on appeal . See Gateway Atl anta Apts. v. H arr is , 290 Ga. App. 772 n.1 ( 660 SE2d 750) (2008). 3 Casciano , 256 Ga. App. 631, 632-633 ( 1) (569 SE2d 56 6) (200 2); OC GA § 19 -9-3 (b). Nor does it

make any

fact ualfi ndings regardi

ng such mat eri al ch anges. A petition to change c hil d custo dy should be granted only if the trial court fi nds tha t th er e h as be en a m at er ial c ha nge of c on dit ion aff e cting the welf are of the ch il d sin ce the l ast cust ody awar d. I f th ere h as beensuch a change, then the court shoul d base it s new custody decisi on on t

he best i nt er est of the child. If the re cord conta ins any rea sona ble evide nce to supp ort the trial judge ’s d ecision o n a pe tition to change custo dy, it w ill be a ffirme d o n a pp ea l. A ltho ugh tria l co urt s h av e w ide dis cr et ion in change of custody proceed ing s, that discreti on is not with out li mit s. (Citations and f

ootn otes omitt ed.) Durham v. G ipson , 261 Ga. App. 602, 605 (1) (583 SE2 d 25 4) (200 3). Although Morgancompl ai ns on appeal 2 that the trial co urt did not ma ke a ny f actu al f i nding s supp ort i ngth e chan ge in cu stody , unl ess re quest ed by either pa rty, the judge i s not

requ i red t o i ncl

ude f actu al f i nding s i n its order, and it does not appear th at4

ei th erMorganor F ordh am ask ed f or su ch f i nding s. See Weickert v. Weickert , 268 Ga. App. 624, 629 (2) (602 SE2d 337) (2004 ); OC GA § 19 -9-3 (a) (8) (“ If request ed by any party on or b efore the clos e of evide nce in a contes ted hea ring, th e pe rmanent court order aw ar din g c hild cu st od y s ha ll se t fo rth sp ec ific fin din gs of fa ct as to the ba sis for the ju dge’s deci si on in m aki ngan awar d of cust ody i

ncl udingany

rel evan t f actor rel i ed uponby the jud ge.” ) Even in the abse nce o f such a re ques t, how ever, existing prece dent req uires that we vacate the trial court’s orde r. In Johnson v. Hubert , 175 Ga. App. 169 (3 33 SE2d 21) (1985 ), we addresse d a si mi l ar order an d wrot e: In the ca se s ub judice , as reflecte d in the trial court’ s findings of fact and conc lusions of

law, t he trial court a wa rded custo dy of the c hild to the pla intiff fat he r s ole ly up on the co nc lus ion tha t it w as in the “best i nterest and we lfare of the c hild” without first finding “a chan ge in m ateri al cond itions or circum stances of the par ti es orthe child, s ubse quent to the ori ginal dec ree o f divorce a nd aw ard o f custod y.” A lthough the evi dence prese nt ed i n the t

ri al cour t m ay have be en suffi cient to supp ort a cha nge of cust ody ( of

whi ch we cann ot m ake a det erm i nat i on in the abs ence of a transc ript), it app ears that the trial co urt failed to ap ply th e co mplete corr ectleg al standard i n this case . Acc ord ingly, we mus t revers e the judgment in the case a nd remand to the trial court f or p roc eed ings cons istent w ith this opinion.5

Id. at 17 0 (1). Likew ise, tho ugh in a different factual c ontext, th i s cour t v acate d a tri al
cour t’s orde r dismi ssing a pl ai nt i f f ’s compl ai nt

based u pon t he doc tr i ne of

ju di ci al
es to pp el, bec ause the trial court’s orde r did not list one of th e f actor s th at can

be use d to ap ply the doctrine of

judici al estoppel. Daniel v. Fulton Co unty , 324 Ga. App. 865 (752 SE 2d 1) (2 01 3) . W e e xp la i n ed t h at“[ w]here, as h ere, i t appe ars f rom th e tri al
cour t’s st at ed ex pla na tio n fo r it s r uli ng t hat i t eng aged in an i

ncompl ete exercise of discreti on bas ed o n an err oneo us theo ry of law, the prope rre me dy fro m th is c ou rt is to remand the ca se to the trial court for its full conside ration of the a ppro priate factors. [Cit s.]” I d. at 867. The disse nt in Daniel

by the au

thor of this opinion ad voca ted a gainst returning
a cas e to the tri al cou rt when the record f

ail s to establish

that the t ri al cou r t affirm ative ly ru l ed basedupon an er ron eous l egal

th eory . Id . at868-8 70 (1) . Whi l e we believe that

the presumption of r egu l arityshou l d be appl i ed to a f f i rm an order t

hat
me re ly fai ls to discu ss a porti on of an appl icabl e leg al standard, thi s vi ew di d not pr ev ail in Daniel . W e therefore are b ound to app ly the majority’s dec ision in Daniel to th e case now before us. We take th is oppor

tunit y, h owever, t o questi on on ce ag ain the w isd om of t his
cour t’s posi ti on t

hat a tri al cour

t’s ordershou l d be v acated based upon what i s not6

cont ai nedwit

hin the t ria l cour t’s order. Thi s positi on f ai l s to r ecogni ze th i s cour t’s ob li gati on to app l y the pr esum pti on of regul arityon app eal , di scourages atr i al co ur t from providing an y explana tion of its reas oning to the p arties, and e ncoura ges the issuance of boil erplate one-sentence orders. Judgment vacat ed and case remanded with direction. Branch, J., concurs
. Barnes, P. J

., con curs i n judg

ment onl y.