In th e S u p re m e Co u rt o f Ge o rg ia

De c id e d: Ma rc h 7 , 2 01 6

S1 5 G1 01 1. S TRICKLAND e t a l. v . S TRICKLAND.

THOMP S O N, Ch ie f Ju stic e

.

Th is c a se in vo lv e s a c u sto d y d isp u te b e twe e n a bio lo g ic a l m o th e r a n d h e r

p a re n ts o ve r th r e e m i n o r c h ild re n

. 1 In 2 0 0 6

, Ro y a n d Be tty S tric k la n d

(“ g ra n d p a re n ts” ) o b ta in e d e m e rg e n c y c u sto d y o f t h e th re e m in o r c h ild re n o f

th e ir d a u g hte r, Le a S tric k la n d (“ m o th e r” ). S u bse q u e n tly

, in O c to b e r 2 0 0 8

, th e

ju v e nile c o u r t f

o u n d a ll th re e c h ild re n we re d e p riv e d a n d

, with m o th e r’s

c o n se n t, e x te n d e d th e g ra n d p a re n ts’ te m

p o ra ry c u sto dy o f th e c h ild re n th ro u g h

Ju ly 20 1 0

, g ra n tin g m o th e r su p e rv ise d v isita tio n

. In m id

- 2 0 1 0

, g ra n d p a re n ts

file d a p e titio n fo r p e rm a n e n t c u sto d y in P a u ld in g Co u nty S u p e rio r Co u rt. Th e

c a se wa s tra n sfe rre d to Co b b Co un t y S u p e rio r C o u rt a fte r th e pa rtie s a g re e d

v e n u e wa s a

p p ro p ria te th e re

. F o llo win g a fiv e d a y b e n c h tria l, th e su p e rio r c o urt

1 The oldest daug hter, C.S, w as born in September 1998, L .T., a son, was b orn in J uly 2000,

and the y o ung est daug hter, I .S. was born in Aug ust 2006. W h i l e all three c hildren have different biolog ical fathers, only L .T.’s father had custodial r ig hts and was a co-defendant w ith mother in the

case below.e n te re d a n o rd e r g ra n tin g g ra n d p a re n ts’ pe titio n

. Mo th e r a pp e a le d

, a n d fin d in g

th a t g ra n d

p a re n ts h a d fa ile d to m e e t t h e h i g h b u rd e n o f p ro o f su ffic ie n t to

d e p riv e m o th e r o f h e r c u sto d ia l rig hts to th e c h ild re n , th e Co u rt o f Ap p e a ls

re v e rse d th e tri a l c o u r t. S e e S tric k la n d v. S tric k la n d

, 3 30 Ga

. Ap p. 8 7 9 (7 6 9

S E2 d 6 0 7 ) (2 01 5). Gra n d p a re n ts file d a p e titio n fo r w rit o f c e rtio ra ri in wh ic h

th e y c la im e d th e Co u rt o f A p p e a ls e rre d in fa ilin g to giv e a p p ro p ria te d e fe re n c e

to th e tria l c o u r t ’ s f

a c tu a l fin d in g s a n d th u s e rre d in re ve rsin g th e tria l c o u rt’s

a wa rd o f p e rm a n e n t c u s t o d y to th e m

. Be c a u se we fin d th e Co u rt o f Ap p e a ls

fa ile d to p ro p e rly a

p p ly th e c o rre c t sta n da rd o f re v ie w, w e re v e rse th e d e c isio n

in th is c a se

.

1

. Cu sto d y d isp u te s b e twe e n a n a tu ra l p a r e n t a n d c lo se th ird p a rty

re la tiv e s a re g o v e rn e d by OCGA § 1 9-7 -1 (b .1 ). 2 Th is sta tu te p ro v id e s th a t, in

2 OCGA § 19-7-1 (b.1) provides in pertinent part:

[ I ] n any action involving the custody of a child between the parents or either parent a nd a third party
limited to g randparent, g reat-g randparent, aunt, uncle, g reat aunt, g reat uncle, sibling

, or adoptive
parent, p arental power may be lost b y the parent, parents, or any other person if the court hearing the

issue of c ustody

, in the ex e r ci se o f its sound discretion and taking into consideration all the

circumstances of the case, determines that an award of custody to s u c h t h ird party is for the best

interest o f the c hild or children and will best promote their w elfare a nd happiness. There shall be

a rebuttable presumption that it is in the best i n t er est of the child or children for custody to be

awarded to the p arent or parents of such child or children, b ut this presumption may be overcome by a showing t hat an a

ward of custody to such third party is in the best interest of the child or children. The sole issue for determination in any such case shall be what is in the best interest of the

child or children.

2a wa rd in g c u sto d y , “ [t] h e so le issu e fo r d e te rm in a tio n

. . . sh a ll b e wh a t is in th e

b e st in te re st o f th e c h ild o r c h ild re n.” OCGA § 1 9-7 -1 (b .1 ). Ho w e v e r, it a lso

e sta b lish e s a re bu tt a b l e p r e s u m p tio n th a t it is in th e b e st in te re st o f a c h ild to

a wa rd c u sto d y to th e p a re n t o f th e c h ild

. Id

. To o v e rc o m e th is p re su m p tio n , a

th ird -p a rty re la tiv e m

u st sh o w, with c le a r a n d c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e , t h a t th e

c h ild will su ffe r e ith e r ph y sic a l h a rm o r sig n ific a n t, lo ng -te rm e m o tio n a l h a rm

if c u sto d y is a w a rd e d to th e p a re n t. S e e Cla rk v

. Wa d e , 2 7 3 Ga

. 5 8 7

, 59 8 -5 9 9

(IV) (5 4 4 S E2 d 9 9 ) (2 0 0 1 )

. I n a d d re ssin g th e issu e o f h arm , tria l c o u rts m u st

c o n sid e r a v a

rie ty o f fa c to rs b e y o n d bio lo gic a l c o n n e c tio n o r g e ne ra liz e d

n o tio n s o f p a re nta l fitn e ss. Th e y a lso m u st c o nsid e r th e p a re n ta l ne e d s a n d th e

c irc u m sta n c e s o f th e c h ild in q u e stio n , se e id

., in c lu d in g (1 ) w h o a re th e p a st a n d

p re se nt c a re ta k e rs o f th e c h ild o r c h ild re n ; (2 ) wit h wh o m h a s th e c h ild o r

c h ild re n fo rm e d psy c h o lo g ic a l b o n d s an d h o w stro n g are th e se b o nd s; (3 ) h a v e

th e c o m p e tin g p a rtie s e v id e n c e d in te re st i n , a n d c o n ta c t with

, th e c h ild o r

c h ild re n o v e r tim e ; a

n d (4 ) a re th e re a n y u n iq u e m e d ic a l o r p sy c h o lo g ic a l n e e d s

o f th e c h ild o r c h ild re n . Id

.

In its d e ta ile d o rd e r a wa rd in g c u sto d y of a ll th re e c h ild re n to g ra n d p a re n ts

3a n d g ra n tin g c o n d itio n a l u n su p e rv ise d v isit a t i o n to m o th e r, th e tria l c o urt

c o rre c tly se t o u t th e a

b o v e la w , m a d e fin d in g s o f fa c t, a p p lie d th e se fin d in g s to

th e fa c to rs id e n tifie d b y th is C o u rt in C la rk

, su pra , an d c o n c lu d e d g ra n d p a re n ts

h a d e sta b lish e d b y c le a r a nd c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e th a t th e c h ild re n wo u ld su ffe r

sig nific a n t lo ng -te rm e m o tio n a l h a rm if m o th e r re c e iv e d c u sto d y

. D e lin e a tin g

fin d in g s o f fa c t a s t o e a c h c h ild a n d th e p a rtie s, th e su p e rio r c o u rt’s o rd e r

re fe re nc e s th e re c o m m e n da tio n s o f th e c ou rt a pp o in te d Gu a rd ia n A d Lite m

(“ GAL” ) o n wh ic h it re lie d

, a n d c re d its th e te stim o n y o f th e c hild re n ’s tre a tin g

p sy c ho lo g ists, wh ic h te stim o n y th e c o u rt fo u n d c o rro b o ra te d b y th e GAL ’s

in v e stig a tio n a nd th e te stim o n y o f o th e r witn e sse s, a n d u n-re b u tte d b y m o th e r.

S p e c ific a lly

, th e tria l c ou rt fo u n d th a t m o th e r la c k e d b o th a n in c o m e a n d

a sta b le re sid e n c e , h e r in te re st in th e c h ild re n wa s sp o ra d ic

, a n d sh e e x h i b i t e d

d isru p tiv e a n d e rra tic b e h a vio r in p u b lic in th e p re se nc e o f th e c h ild re n

. With

re sp e c t to h e r d ru g u se , th e su p e rio r c o urt o bse r v e d m o th e r ha d e x p e rim e n te d

with e c sta sy , m e th a m

p h e ta m in e , a n d c o c a in e in th e p a st, a n d a d m itte d sh e h a d

b e e n a d a ily u se r o f m a

riju a n a a n d a l c o h o l f

o r m o st o f h e r life

. Th e su p e rio r

c o u rt a lso h a d e v id e n c e b e fo re it sh o win g th a t m o th e r wa s c h a rg e d in Ma y 2 0 0 9

with m isd e m e a n o r m a riju a n a p o sse ssio n an d

, a fte r m e e tin g wit h a d ru g

4a d d ic tio n c o u n se lo r th re e tim e s a n d p a ssin g a d ru g te st, wa s d isc h arg e d fro m

c o u n se lin g a s b e in g c le a n a n d so b e r. S u b se q u e ntly

, d u rin g th e p e nd e n c y o f th e

in sta n t c u sto d y a c tio n , m o th e r wa s a rre ste d fo r d riv in g u n d e r th e in flu e n c e a n d

a d m itte d to o ffic e rs th a t sh e h a d sm o k e d m ariju a n a th a t d a y

. M o th e r p le d g u ilty

to re c k le ss d r i v i n g a s a r e su lt o f th is a rre st a n d

, a s a c o n d itio n o f pro b a tio n

fo llo win g e n t r y o f th is g u ilty p le a , wa s a g a in re q u ire d to m e e t with a d ru g

a d d ic tio n c o u n se lo r a n d a tte n d c o u n se lin g se ssio n s twic e a we e k fo r th re e to six

m o n th s. De sp ite t e stify in g th a t m o th e r fa ile d to fu lly c o m p ly w ith th e se

re q u i r e m e nts, m o th e r’s dru g a d d ic tio n c ou nse lo r c e rtifie d he r a s no t c u rre n tly

d ru g de p e n d e n t b a se d o n h e r h a v in g p a sse d se v e ra l dru g te sts a n d c o m p le tin g

a p p r o x i ma t e ly two a

n d a ha lf h o u rs o f c o u n se lin g , an a sse ssm e n t th e su p e rio r

c o u rt e x p lic itly re

je c te d in its o rd e r a s u np e rsu a siv e

. Th e su p e rio r c o urt

a d d itio n a lly n o te d th a t a lth o u g h m o th e r h a d be e n tre a te d by th e sa m e

p sy c hia trist fo r b ip o la r d iso rd e r fo r a p p ro x im a te ly 1 0 y e a rs, sh e a dm itte d n e v e r

in fo rm in g h im a

b o u t h e r m a riju a n a

a n d a lc o h o l u se

.

With re sp e c t to th e c hild re n , th e su pe ri o r c ou rt de te rm in e d b a se d o n th e

te stim o n y o f e a c h c h ild ’s th e ra p ist, th e fin d in g s o f th e g u a rd ia n a d lite m , a n d th e

c o u rt’s o wn in te rv ie ws with e a c h c h ild

, th a t th e c h ild re n h a d b o n d e d with th e ir

5g ra n dp a re n ts, h a v in g e xc lu siv e ly re sid e d with th e m sin c e 2 0 0 6 ; th a t a l l o f t h e

c h ild re n h a d u n iq u e p sy c h o lo g ic a l issu e s wh ic h on ly th e g ra nd pa re n ts h a d

a d d re sse d ; a n d th a t th e re wa s c le a r a nd c o n v in c in g e v id e nc e t h a t th e c h ild re n

wo u ld su ffe r sig n ific a n t lo n g -te rm e m o ti o n a l h a rm if th e y we re p la c e d in

m o th e r’s c u sto d y

. 3 F in d in g th e pre su m p tio n i n f

a v o r o f m o th e r h a d b e e n

re b u tte d b y th e fo re g o in g e v id e n c e , m u c h o f wh ic h re q u ire d th e c o urt to a sse ss

th e c re d ib ility o f th e witn e sse s’ te stim o n y , th e su pe rio r c o urt a d d itio n a lly

d e te rm in e d th e e v id e nc e wa s c le a r a n d c o n v in c in g th a t it wa s in th e c h ild re n ’s

b e st in te re st fo r g ra n d

pa re n ts to b e awa rd e d p e rm a n e n t c u sto d y

. In re v e rsin g th e

3 S p ecifically

, the superior court f ound that the y oung est child, I .S., had lived with h e r

g randparents all her life and w as a happy and well-adjusted child prior to the instant custody dispute. According to the record, I .S.’s treating psy cholog ist dia gn o s ed h er with an adjustment disorder resulting from anx iety , and testified that she was suffering emotionally

from a heig htened level of insecurity d

ue to the conflict; that she ex hibited increased defiance and ag g ression following contact
with mother; and that, in the psy cholog ist’s professional opinion, I .S. would suffer long term
emotional harm if removed from her g randparent’s c are and placed in mother’s custody

. Similarly

, the superior court found that, C.S., the oldest child, had b een receiving professional c ounseling f or

y ears to address family issues, including her concerns a bout mother’s substance a buse problems. At trial, C.S.’s p s y c h o log ist testified that C.S. viewed mother a s unreliable, unpredictable, immature

and embarrassing ; g ave specific ex amples of incidents related to h e r b y C

. S

. of inappropriate

behavior and poor judg ment o n mother’s part w h ich the psy cholog ist viewed as psy cholog ically

da m a gi n g to the child; and, o pined that C.S. would suffer long term e motional harm if placed in

mother’s c ustody

. O bserving that C.S. had a close relationship with g r andparents, the superior court
found she was an ex cellent student with a five-y ear perfect school attendance record, w as popular

and a leader among her peers, attended church reg ularly and was active in her y o uth g roup. F inally

, the superior court found that L .T., the middle child and only boy

, had been under the treatment of

a psy cholog ist for over four y ears and had been diag nosed with major depressive d isorder. Althoug h acknowledg ing that L .T. suffered from complex emotional issues requiring continued treatment, the

court noted that the evidence also showed that L

. T. was an averag e student with p erfect attendance,

was involved in ex tracurricular activ i t i e s a n d sports, and a ttended church reg ularly where he participated in choir and y outh activities.

6su p e rio r c ou rt’s c u sto d y ru lin g , th e Co u rt o f Ap p e a ls re c o gn iz e d th a t it wa s

re q u ire d to “ v ie w th e e v id e n c e i n t h e lig h t m ost fa v o ra b le to th e tria l c o u rt’s

d e c isio n ,” se e Wh ite h e a d v

. M y e rs, 3 1 1 Ga

. Ap p

. 6 8 0

, 6 8 8 (1 ) (7 16 S E2 d 7 8 5 )

(2 0 1 1 ), b u t p ro c e e d e d to re je c t m a n y o f th e s u p e r io r c o urt’s fa c tu a l fin d in g s

with little o r n o d i sc u ssio n a s to wh e th e r th e se fin d in g s we re su p p o rte d b y

e v id e n c e in th e re c ord . S e e S tric k la nd

, su pra a t 8 79

.

As sta te d p re v io usly

, g ra n d p a re n ts a rg u e th a t th e Co u rt o f Ap p e a ls e rre d

in fa ilin g to g iv e p ro p e r d e fe re n c e to th e su p e rio r c ou rt’s fa c tu a l fin d in g s in th is

c a se a n d

, b a se d o n ou r re vie w o f th e re c o rd

, we a g re e

. In th e a p p e lla te re v ie w

o f a b e nc h tria l, a tria l c o u rt’s fa c tu a l fin d in g s m u st n o t b e se t a sid e u n le ss th e y

a re c le a rly e rro n e o u s. Se e Ellis v

. Ellis, 2 9 0 Ga

. 6 1 6

, 6 1 7 ( 7 2 4 S E2 d 3 8 4 )

(2 0 1 2 ); La ng le y v. La ng le y , 2 7 9 Ga

. 37 4 (6 1 3 S E2 d 6 1 4 ) (2 0 0 5 ); Ta n k sle y v

.

P a rk e r, 2 7 8 Ga

. 8 7 7 (1 ) (6 0 8 S E2 d 5 9 6 ) (2 0 0 5 ). Ra th e r, d u e d e fe re nc e m u st b e

g iv e n to th e tria l c o u rt, a c k n owle d g in g th a t it ha s th e o p p o rtu n ity to ju d g e th e

c re d ib ility o f th e witn e sse s. Ellis, su p ra

. F a r fro m v ie win g th e e v id e n c e in th e

lig h t m ost fa v o ra

b le to th e su p e ri o r c o u rt’s d e c isio n , or d e te rm in in g th a t th e

su p e rio r c o u rt’s fa c tu a l fin d in g s o n th e re le v a n t issu e s we re c le a rly e rro n e o u s,

th e re c o rd d e m o n stra te s th a t th e Co u rt o f Ap p e a ls c o n d u c te d its own re v ie w o f

7th e e v id e n c e , g iv in g in su ffic ie n t d e fe re n c e to th e tria l c o urt fin d in g s o f fa c t a n d

c re d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n s. F o r e x a m p le

, th e Co u rt o f Ap p e a ls c o nc lu d e d t h a t

th e e v id e n c e sh o we d m o th e r h a d a jo b wo rk in g fro m ho m e , h a d a sta b le liv in g

e n v iro n m e n t with h e r fia n c é

, h a d c o m p le te d su b sta n c e a

b u se tre a tm e n t a n d

p a sse d d ru g t e sts sh o win g sh e wa s dru g fre e , h a d a n d c o n tin u e d to re c e iv e

tre a tm e nt fo r h e r m e n ta l he a lth issu e s, m a in ta in e d a stro n g b o n d with h e r

c h ild re n , a n d w a s c a

p a b le o f a d d re ssin g th e c h ild re n ’s p sy c h o lo g ic a l n e e d s. In

m a k in g th e se fin din g s, th e Co u rt of Ap p e a ls d isre g a rd e d m u c h o f th e e v id e n c e

o n wh ic h th e su pe rio r c o u rt re lie d

, in c lu d in g e v id e n ce th a t m o th e r fre q u e n tly

sta y e d o ve rn ig ht a t p la c e s o th e r th a n h e r fia n c é ’s re sid e n c e , 4 th a t sh e re c e iv e d

n o in c o m e fro m h e r a lle g e d e m p lo y m e n t, 5 a n d t h at s h e m a y n o t b e d ru g fre e

.

Mo re o v e r, th e Co u rt of Ap p e a ls g a v e n o we ig ht to th e su p e rio r c o urt’s fin d in g s

th a t m o th e r n e v e r re a c h e d o ut to h e r c h ild re n’s p sy c h o lo g ists to o b ta in

4 The superior court cited evidence s h o w i n g that in several of the months preceding the custody trial, mother spent more n ig hts each month at various local hotels, a partments, mobile home parks and houses with different people, at least one of whom was identified as a known drug u ser, than she did at her fiancé’s residence.

5 Althoug h the evidence is undisputed th a t mother received n o income from h er claimed employ ment of working for her fiancé, the Court of Appeals found that mother and her sister each

owned an interest in a limited family partnership manag ed by their father. T h e C o u r t o f Appeals

surmised tha t mother w ould b e entitled to receive a share o f the monthly income earned by the family partnership, even thoug h the evidence showed neither mother n or h er sister had ever received

a distribution.

8in fo rma t i o n a b o u t th e ir issu e s, to d isc u ss th e ir n e e d s, o r to pa rtic ip a te in th e ir

th e ra p y ; th a t m o th e r lie d to a n d /o r with h e ld in fo rm a tio n fro m he r o wn

p sy c hia trist a

b o u t h e r d ru g a n d a lc o h o l a b u se ; a n d th a t m o th e r re p e at e d ly m isse d

h e r o wn sc h e d u le d c o u n se lin g se ssio n s.

Mo th e r’s e m o tio n a l imm a tu rity

, la c k o f p a re n tin g sk ills, in a p p ro p ria te

c o n d u c t, dru g a

b use , a n d irre sp o n sib ility to wa rd s h e r c h ild re n w e re w e ll

d o c u m e nte d in th e re c o rd

. Alth o u g h m o th e r p re se n te d e v id e n c e a im e d a t

sh o win g sh e wa s p re p a re d to m e e t h e r c h ild re n ’s c u rre n t a n d fu tu re n e e d s, it wa s

fo r th e su p e rio r c o u rt

, n ot th e Co u rt o f A p pe a ls to re so lv e c o n flic ts in th e

t e stim o n y

. S e e Ha sk e ll v

. Ha sk e ll, 2 86 Ga

. 1 1 2 (1 ) (6 8 6 S E2 d 1 0 2 ) ( 2 0 0 9 )

. 6

Af t e r r e v i e win g th e re c o rd a n d g iv in g th e tria l c ou rt’s fin d in g s o f fa c t th e

re q u ire d d e fe re n c e , se e Ellis, su p ra , we c a n n o t c on c l u d e t h a t th e se fa c tu a l

fin d in g s a re c le a rly e rro n e o us. F u rth e rm o re , b a se d on th e se fa c tu a l fin d in g s, th e

6 As this Court recently observed,

[ w] here

. . .the trial court has made ex tensive finding s of f a ct, we g enerally must

presume that the absence o f a finding of a f a ct that would tend to un d er m ine the

conclusion of the trial court reflects a considered choice to reject the evidence offered

t o prove that fact, e specially where there were g r ounds upon which the tr i a l co u r t properly could have assig ned no weig h t to such evidence.

Hug hes v. State, 296 Ga. 744, 747 (770 SE2d 636) (2015).

9su p e rio r c o u rt wa s a u th oriz e d to c o n c lu d e t h a t th e sta tu to ry p re su m p tio n in

fa v o r o f m o th e r h a d b e e n o v e rc o m e b y c le a r a n d c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e th a t th e

c h ild re n wo u ld su ffe r sig n ific a n t lo n g te rm e m o tio n a l h a rm if sh e wa s a wa rd e d

c u sto d y . Ac c ord in g ly

, we re v e rse th e d e c isio n o f th e Co urt o f Ap p e a ls.

2

. B e c a use we h e l d i n D iv isio n 1o f th is o p in io n th a t re vie win g th e

e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to th e tria l c o u rt’s de c isio n t h e sta tu to ry

p re su m p t i o n in fa v o r o f a

wa rd in g c u sto d y o f th e c h ild re n to m o th e r h a s b e e n

re b u tte d b y c le a

r a n d c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e , w e m u st n ow c o n sid e r wh e th e r th e

su p e r i o r c ou rt e rre d in a wa rd in g c u sto d y o f th e c hild re n to g ra n d p a re n ts. 7 S e e

OCGA § 1 9 -7 -1 (b .1 ); H a rris v

. S n e lg ro v e , 2 9 0 Ga

. 1 81

, 1 8 3 (7 1 8 S E3 d 3 0 0 )

(2 0 1 1 ). Giv e n th e e vid e n c e pre se n te d

, we fin d th e su p e rio r c o u rt wa s a u th o riz e d

to c o n c lu d e th a t g ra n d

p a re nts h a d d e m o nstra te d b y c le a r a nd c o n v in c in g

e v id e n c e th a t a p e rm a n e n t a wa rd o f c u sto d y to th e m wo u ld b e in th e c h ild re n ’s

b e st in te re st. S e e g e n e ra lly In re D. W., 3 1 1 Ga

. Ap p. 6 8 0

, 6 8 8 (7 1 6 S E 2 d 7 8 5 )

(2 0 1 1 ).

Ju d g m e n t re ve rse d . All th e Ju stic e s c o n c u r.

7 Having determined that g randparents failed to over c o me mother’s presumptive rig ht to custody in t h i s c a s e , the Court of A ppeals decided it need not consider whether g r andparents had

demonstrated that a permanent awar d o f c ustody to them would be in the children’s best interest. See Strickland, supra at 883, n. 6.

10