FINAL C OPY

294 Ga. 719 S14F01 81. ROSE v. ROSE. T HOMPSON , Chief Justice. Bruce and Latosha Rose were married in 2003. They h ave one

child w ho

was born in 2007. The couple lived in Gwinnett County and the c hildattended school there until 2012 when the couple sepa rate d. After the sep arati on, wife moved to Henry Count y to be near her sister’s family a nd took the child with her. Shortly ther eafter, wife filed a complai nt for divorce against husband in Gwinnett Coun ty. At a temporary

hearing held in

A ugust 2012, h

usband ag

reed th at wife wouldhave p rima

ry physical custod y of the child. A tempor ary order was entered giving pri mary

physi cal custody to wife a nd stipulating that the child wouldattend

schoolin wife’s scho ol district. Th e parties were given jo int legal custody and dire cted to confer with oneanother on all matt ers per

taining to the well-be ing of the child. Following the ent ryof the temporary order, the child attended an ele mentary sc hool in Henry County, the wife ’s school district. A f inal he aring wa s held in D ecem ber 2012 a

t which h usband sough t prima ryphysic al cust ody of the child. In this re gard, hus band express ed h is2

conce rn for the child’s education in Henry County, claim

ing that the

elem entary school that the chi ld could a ttend in G winnett County i s ranked

fifth in the state, while the school the child att en ded in Henry County is ranked a pproximately 4 00 th

. Although he

allowe d that wi fe esse

ntially was a good mothe

r, hu sban d took issue with the quality of the meals wife gave to the child . In this r egard, husband claimed that

he fed t he child healthy, home cooked meals; b ut wife fed the child fast foo d, as well as processed , pr e-pac kaged foo d, far t oo often. Husband also asserted th at

wife’s work s chedule requir edthe child to atten d an afterschool pro gram; wherea s he works from home seve ral day s a week and, therefore, he would be a

ble to re trieve

the chi ld from

school and spend time with him most a fternoons . Final ly, husb and tes tified t hat thechild

behaved better in his presence than in

the pre sence

of wife a nd that a fter the

child m oved to He

nry County he “st arted to talk back a lo t more.” Following

the hea ring, the trial c ourt entered a final dec ree of divorce in which it awarded joint legal cu stody to both par ties and primary ph ysical custody to hu sband . The tri al cour t did n ot ma ke findings of facts and conclus ions of law. Wife soug ht and we granted an applic ation for discretiona

ry appea l pursuant

to this C ourt’s Rul e 34 (4). This ap peal fo llowed.3

1. Wife a rgues the trial c ourt erre d in awa

rding prima

ry physi cal c ustody to husband

beca use it foc used on fa ctors oth er than the bes t intere st of the child. See generally Mock v. Mock , 258 Ga . 407 (369 SE2d 255) (1988) ( while trial court may consider conduct of parties in dete rmining custody , it m

ustultimately decide the cus tody issu e on thebasis of t he best interes t of the c hild). M ore specifically, wife a sserts t he trial c ourt’s cus tody dec ision wa s based only on the ground that husb and’s sc hool distric t provides a better educational

opportunity for the child. See generall y Bisno v. Bisno , 238 Ga . 328 (232 SE 2d 921) (1977) (error to find material change substan tially affecting welfar e of children where only evidenc e of cha

nge ste ms from

the rem oval of c hildren a s s tu dents from school); Fox v. Koru cu , 315 Ga . App. 851, 854 (729 SE2d 16) (201 2) (evidence that child’s g

r ades beg an to drop a

nd she wa s unhappy

and stre ssed abo ut attend ing her cur

rent sc hool constituted s ome e vidence of mate ri al change in circumstances adversely aff ecting child). We cannot accept this ass ertion.

Where the trial court exerc ises its discre tion and award s custody

of

a child to one fit pa

rent ove r the othe

r fit parent, th e appe llatecourt will not inter fere with that decision un less there is evid ence the trial4

court clearly abused its di scretion. Powell v. Powell , 277 Ga . 878 (596 SE2d 616) (2004); Welch v. Welch , 277 Ga . 808, 809 ( 596 SE2d 134) (20 04). If there i s any evidence to sup port the tri al court's decisi on, it c annot besaid there was an abuse of discretion. Id.

Anderson v. Ande rson , 278 Ga . 713 (606 SE 2d 251) (2004). Contrar yto wife ’s asse rt ion, a review of the record provides a mple evidence to support the

award of physic al cust ody to husba nd based on the be st int erest of the c hild. Th is includ es evid ence that husba nd’s em ploym ent schedule enables him to d evote mo re time to the child, see OCGA § 19-9-3 ( a) (3) (K), that the child is better behaved when he i s reare d by husban d, see OCGA§ 19-9-3 (a) (3) (C), and that husban d provid es more n utritious mea ls for the child. See OC GA § 19-9-3 (a) (3) ( E). In light of th is evidence, w e find no clear abuse of dis cretion. The mere fact that wife was award ed tem porary physic al cust ody does not require this Court to reach a di fferent result

. [A]n award

of t empora

ry cust ody “differ[s] in i ts nature and5

purpose from

an award of permanent cus tody.” Foster v. Foster , 230 Ga. 658, 660 ( 198 SE2d 881) (19 73). The temporary aw a rd is intended to create a

n inte rim ar rangem ent tha t serve s “[t]he

best interests of th e child

pending a djudica

tion of the

rights of t

he mother and father,” Adams v. State , 218 Ga. 130, 131 (126 SE2d 624) (1962), whereas an award of perm anent custody c onstitute s “a final a djudica

tion of the

rights of t

he parties.”

Id. Pace v. Pace , 287 Ga . 899, 900 ( 700 SE2d 571) ( 2010). 2. The trial court did

not err in denyin g wife’s post-judgm ent req uest for findings of fact and conclu sions of law. Youngblood v. Youngblood , 263 Ga. App. 820, 82 1 (589 SE2 d 602) (2 003); OCGA § 9 -11-52. 3. Wife contends t he case was not ripe fo r a final hearing beca use hus band did not com

plete a parenting workshop previousl y ma ndated b y the trial court. Because this c ontention was not raised in the trial court, it will

not be addressed on appeal. Earnest v. S t ate , 262 Ga . 494, 495 ( 422 SE2d 188) (1992); Batesville Casket Co. v. W atkins Mort uary, Inc. , 293 Ga. App. 854, 855 (668 SE2d 476) (2008). Judgme nt affir

med. All the

Justice s concur .6 Decid ed March 3, 2014. Dome stic re lations. Gwinne tt Superi or Court. Before Judge Tur

ner. Phyll is R. Wi lliams , for appellant. Danie le C. Johnson , for appellee.