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

De c id e d: F e b ru a ry 2 2 , 2 0 1 6

S1 5 A1 4 5 0 . COP P EDGE v

. COP P E DGE.

THOMP S O N, Ch ie f Ju stic e

.

Ap p e lla n t Bra d le y Co p p e d g e (h u sb a n d) a p p e a ls fro m a tria l c o urt’s o rd e r

d e n y in g h is p e titio n fo r m od ific a tio n o f c h ild c u sto d y an d visita tio n a n d h o ld in g

h im in c o n te m

p t o f a fin a l d iv o rc e d e c re e

. Fo r th e re a so n s th a t fo llo w, we a ffirm

in p a rt a n d re ve rse in p a rt.

Th e re c o rd d e m o n stra te s th a t h u sb and a n d a p p e lle e Ca th e rin e Co p p e d g e

(wife ) we re d iv o rc e d in De c e m b e r 2 0 06 b y a

fin a l ju d g m e n t in c o rp o ra tin g th e

p a rtie s’ se ttle m e n t a g re e m e n t. At th e tim e th e fin a l d e c re e wa s e n te re d, h u sb a n d

a n d wife h a d two m in or d a u g h te rs wh o a tte n d e d p riv a te sc h o o l a n d su m m e r a n d

a fte r-sc h o o l c a

re a t S t. Lu ke S c h o o l i n Co lu m bu s, Ge o rg ia

. Th e fin a l d e c re e

re q u ire d h u sb a n d to p a y w ife $ 2 ,0 0 0 in m o n th ly c h ild su p p o rt a n d fu rth e r

p ro v id e d in a p ro v isio n e n title d “ Ed u c a tio n a l Ex p e nse s: (1 ) E x p e n se s Th ro u g h

Hig h S c ho o l” th a t:In c lu d e d in th e d ire c t c a s h p a y m e n t to Wife fro m Hu sb a n d p u rsu a n t to

[th e $ 2 ,0 0 0 c h ild su p p o rt c a lc u la tio n ] a re wh a t th e p a rtie s h a v e

d e te rm in e d to b e Hu sb a n d ’s pro p o rtio n a l sh a re s o f a priv a te sc h o o l

e d u c a tio n fo r e a c h C h ild a t S t. L u k e

. In a d d itio n

, th e p a rtie s re c o g n iz e

th a t a lso in c lu d e d in Hu sb a n d ’ s d i r e c t c a sh p a y m e n t to Wife fro m

Hu sb a n d p u rsu a n t to [th e c hild su p p o rt c a lc u la tio n ] a re h is pro p o rtio n a l

sh a re s fo r a n y a mo u n t s p a id in c o n n e c tio n with e ith e r a fte r sc h o o l o r

su m m e r c a re fo r e ith e r o r b o th o f th e Ch ild re n

. S ho uld th e e x p e n se s

a sso c ia te d with S t. Lu k e in c re a se o r d e c re a se fo r e ith e r o r b o th Ch ild re n

f o r a n y re a so n

, in c lu d in g th e a fte r sc h o o l o r su m m e r c a re a m o u n ts, th e

p a rtie s sh a ll e v e n ly d iv id e (i.e

. 50 /5 0 ) th e a m o u n t o f a n y su c h in c re a se o r

d e c re a se

, a n d Hu sb a n d ’ s dire c t c a sh a m o u n t p u rsu a n t to su b p a ra g ra p h

(“ B” ) a b o v e sh a ll be a d

ju ste d a c c o rd in g ly

. . . . Wife sh a ll b e re sp o n sib le

fo r m a k in g a ll p a y m e n ts d ire c tly to th e sc h oo ls. No twith sta n d in g Wife ’s

d e c i s i o n m a

k i n g -a uth o rity o v e r th e Ch ild re n ’s e d uc a tio n s, if e ith e r o r b o th

o f th e C h ild re n b e re m o v e d fro m S t. L u k e and p la c e d [in ] a n o th e r p riv a te

sc h o o l th a t is m o re e x p e n siv e th an S t. Lu k e

, Hu sb a n d ’s o b lig a tio n to p a y

fo r p riv a te sc h o ol e x p e n se s sh a ll b e lim ite d t o t h o se a m ou nts th a t h e

wo u ld b e c ha rg e d b y S t. Lu k e fo r g iv e n g r a d e le v e l(s) in wh ic h th e

Ch ild re n a re e n ro lle d

.

In th e sp rin g o f 2 0 1 0

, wife d e c id e d to re m o v e th e c h ild re n fro m St. Lu k e

su m m e r c a re a

n d hire d a b a

b y sitte r to p ro v id e su mme r a n d a fte r-sc h o o l c h ild

c a re fo r th e c h ild re n in he r h o m e

. In Ma y 2 0 10

, h usb an d file d a p e titio n se e k in g

m o d ific a tio n o f th e fin a l d e c re e ’s c h ild c usto d y a n d visita tio n a wa rd s. Hu sb a n d

su b se q u e n tly re d uc e d th e a m o u n t o f h is m o n th ly c h ild su p p o rt p a y m e n ts b y th e

a m o u n t o f h is sh a re o f th e c o st o f se n d in g th e c h ild re n to a fte r-sc h o o l a n d

su m m e r c a re a t S t. Lu k e

. Wife a n swe re d an d c o u n te rc la im e d fo r c o n te m p t,

2a rg u i n g

, a m o n g o th e r th in g s, th a t h usb a n d h a d fa ile d to p a y a p p ro x im a te ly

$ 7 ,0 0 0 i n c hild su p p ort, a n a m o u n t d e te rm in e d b y c a lc u la tin g wh a t h u sb a n d

wo u ld h a v e b e e n re qu ire d to p a y if th e c h ild re n we re still a tte n d in g a fte r-sc h o o l

a n d su m m e r c a re p ro g ra m s a t S t. Lu k e

.

Afte r a h e a rin g a t wh ic h b o th p a rtie s p re se n te d e v id e n c e a n d a rg u m e n t, th e

tria l c o u rt e n te re d a fin a l o rd e r d e n y in g h u sb a n d ’s p e titio n fo r m od ific a tio n a n d

h o ld in g h im in c o n te m

p t fo r h is fa ilu re to p a y h is sh a re o f th e c hild re n ’s a fte rs c h o o l an d su m m e r c a re e x p e n se s a nd fo r h is fa ilu re o n o n e o c c a sio n to g iv e

wife h e r c o u rt-o rd e re d v isita tio n

. Th e tria l c o u rt c o n c lu d e d a s a m a tte r o f la w

th a t th e fin a l d iv o rc e d e c re e d id n o t “ c on fin e th e se p a rtie s to S t. L uk e a fte r c a re

o r su m m e r c a m

p

, a nd th a t [h u sb a n d ] wa s n o t e n title d to re d u c e c h ild su p p ort

w ith o u t a Co urt o rd e r.” Hu sb a n d ’s m o tio n s fo r ne w tria l a n d re c o n si d e r a t i o n

we re d e n ie d

. 1 Hu sb a n d n o w a p p e a ls fro m th e tria l c o u rt o r d e r h o ld in g h im in

c o n te m pt o f th e fin a l d iv orc e d e c re e a s we ll a s th e d e n ia l o f h is p e ti t i o n f o r

1 P r ior t o entry of the trial court’s f inal order, husband f

iled a pleading sty led a s a

m otion f or reconsideration. H e f

iled a second m otion f

or reconsideration a f

ter the f i nal order

was entered.

3m o d ific a tio n o f c u sto d y a nd visita tio n

. 2

1

. Hu sb a n d c o n te n d s th e tria l c o u rt e rre d in h o ld in g h im in c o n te m p t

b a se d o n h is p a y m e n t of th e re d u c e d c h ild su p p o rt a m o u n ts a fte r th e c h ild re n

sto pp e d a t t e n d i n g S t. Lu k e ’s su m m e r an d a fte r-sc h oo l c a re

. S p e c ific a lly

,

h u sb a n d a rg u e s th a t h e o n ly a g re e d to p a y h is p ro p o rtio n a te sh a re o f a fte r-sc h o o l

a n d su m m e r c a re e x p e n se s in c u rre d a t S t. L u k e

, a n d t h e re fo re

, he wa s n o t

o b lig a te d to p a y fo r a ny of th e e x p e n se s a sso c ia te d with th e in -h om e b a b y sitte r

h ire d by wife

. He a lso c o n te n d s th a t th e d e c re e p e rm itte d h im to m a k e a n

a d ju stm e n t to h is p a y m e n t fo r c h ild c a re with o u t c o urt o rd e r. Wife a sse rts th a t

th e c o st o f th e b a

b y sitte r is a n a fte r-sc h o o l a n d su m m e r c h ild c ar e ex p e nse

wh ic h h u sb a n d is o b lig a te d to p ay a p o rtio n o f u n d e r th e te rm s o f th e d e c re e

.

Th e t h r esh o ld issu e fo r d e te rm in a tio n th e n is th e p artie s’ in te n t with

r e g a r d to h u sb a n d ’s o b lig a tio n to p a y a p ro p o rtio n a te sh a re o f th e c h ild r e n ’ s

a fte r-sc h o o l a n d su m m e r c a re e x p e n se s. It is u n disp u te d th a t

[a ] se ttle m e n t a g re e m e n t in c o rp o ra te d in t o a d iv o rc e d e c re e is

c o n stru e d a c c o rd in g to th e sa m e ru le s th a t g o v e rn c o n tra c tu a l

2 Husband f

iled an application f

or d iscretionary appeal in this Cou r t w h i ch was

granted p u r s u a n t t o O C G A § 5-6-35 (j) because he w as entitled to a d irect a ppeal. See

OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11).

4in te rp re ta tio n in g e ne ra l, with th e c a rd in a l ru le b e in g t o a s c e rta in

th e in te n tio n o f th e p a rtie s. Wh e re an y c o n tra c tu a l te rm o f a

se ttle m e nt a g re e m e nt in c o rp ora t e d in to a d e c re e is c le a r,

u n a m big u o u s, a n d c a

p a b le o f o n ly o n e in te rp re ta tio n a s w ritte n

, th e

p ro v isio n ' s p la in m e a n in g m ust b e stric tly e n fo rc e d

.

(F o o tn o te s o mi t te d .) Ha ll v

. Da y

, 2 7 3 Ga

. 8 3 8

, 83 9 -8 4 0 (1 ) (5 46 S E 2 d 4 6 9 )

(2 0 0 1 ). Th e tria l c o u rt fo u nd th e la n g u a g e o f th e p a rtie s’ a g re e m e n t, a n d th u s

th e fin a l d e c re e

, d id n o t a s a m a tte r o f la w c o nfin e h u sb an d ’s o b lig a tio n to p a y

fo r a fte r-sc h o o l a n d su m

m e r c a re to c a re p ro v id e d b y S t. Lu k e

. T h e re fo re

, th e

c o u rt c on c lu d e d

, h u sb a n d wa s in v io la tio n o f th e d iv o rc e d e c re e wh e n

, a fte r wife

h ire d a b a b y sitte r to p ro vid e a fte r-sc h o ol a n d su m m e r c h ild c a re

, h e re d u c e d th e

a m o u n t o f c h ild su p p o rt b y th e a m o u n t h e wo u ld h a ve o th e rwise p a id fo r a fte rsc h o o l o r su m m e r c a re a t S t. Lu ke

.

Ap p ly in g g e ne ra l ru le s o f c o n tra c t c o n stru c tio n, we c a n n o t a g re e with th e

tria l c o urt’s c o n c lu sio n th a t th e re le v a n t la n g u a g e o f th e de c re e u n a m big u o u sly

im p o se d u p o n h u sb a nd a n o b lig a tio n to p a y fo r a p ro p o rtio n a te sh a re o f th e c o st

o f th e b a b y sitte r h ire d b y w ife

. A c are fu l re v ie w o f th e la n g u a g e o f th e d e c re e

p ro v e s it is c a

pa b le o f m o re th a n o n e re a so n a b le in te rp re ta tio n

. Fo r in sta n c e

, th e

d e c re e sa y s th a t “ Hu sb a nd ’s d ire c t c a sh p a y m e n t ” o f $ 2 ,0 0 0 in c lu de s “ h is

p ro p o rtio n a l sh a re s fo r a n y a m o u n ts p a id in c o n n e c tio n with e ith e r a fte r sc h o o l

5o r su m m e r c a re fo r e ith e r o r b o t h o f t h e Ch ild re n

. ” Re a d in iso la tio n

, th is

p ro p o rtio n a l sh a re p ro v isio n re a so n a b ly c o u ld b e in te rp re te d a s im p o sin g u p o n

h u sb a n d a ge n e ra l a n d u n re stric te d o b lig a tio n to c o n trib u t e to th e c o st o f

a fte r-sc h o o l a nd su m

m e r c a re e v e n if it is n o t p r o v i d e d b y S t. Lu k e

, th u s n o t

p e rm ittin g h im to d e d u c t fro m h is “ d ire c t c a sh p a y m e n t” h is p ro p o rtio n a l sh a re

o f c h ild c a re p ro v id e d b y th e b a by sitte r in th is c a se

.

Th e v e ry n e x t se n te n c e of th e d e c re e (th e “ a dj u stm e n t p ro v isio n” ),

h o we v e r, c re a te s a n a m

b ig u ity re ga rd in g th is issu e

. It p ro v id e s th a t th e p a rtie s

sh a ll e v e n ly d iv id e a n y in c re a se o r d e c re a se in “ th e e x pe n se s a sso c ia te d with S t.

Lu k e fo r e ith e r o r b o th Ch ild re n

. . . , in c lu d in g th e a fte r sc h o o l o r su m m e r c a re

a m o u n ts.” It a lso sa y s t h at “ H u sb a n d ’s d ire c t c a sh a m o u n t sh a ll b e a d ju ste d ”

a c c o rd in g to th e in c re a se o r d e c r e a se in “ e x p e n se s a sso c ia te d with S t. Lu k e .”

“ [W] e g e n e ra lly a c c e p t th a t c o n tra c tu a l te rm s c arry th e ir o r d i n a ry m e a n in g ,”

Arc h e r We ste rn Co ntra c to rs, Ltd

. v

. Esta te o f Ma c k P itts, 2 9 2 Ga

. 2 1 9

, 2 2 4 (7 3 5

S E2 d 7 72 ) (2 0 1 2 ), a n d “ [w] o rd s, lik e p e o p le , are ju dg e d b y th e c o m p a n y th e y

k e e p ,” Wa rre n v

. S ta te

, 2 9 4 G a

. 5 89

, 5 9 0 -5 9 1 (7 55 S E2 d 1 71 ) (2 0 1 4 ); a c c o rd

An d e rso n v

. An de rso n

, 2 7 4 Ga

. 2 2 4

, 2 2 7 (5 5 2 S E2 d 80 1) (2 0 0 1 )

. Th e wo rd

“ a sso c ia te d ” m e a n s “

jo in [e d ] o r c o n n e c t[e d] to g e th e r.” S e e M e rria m -We b ste r

6Dic t io n a ry

, h ttp ://www.m e rria m -we b ste r.c o m /d ic tio n a ry /a sso c ia te d (We b site

la st a c c e sse d F e b ru a ry 4

, 2 0 1 6 ). Giv in g it its o rd in a ry m e a n in g

, th e p hra se “ th e

e x p e n se s a sso c ia te d with S t. Lu k e fo r e ith e r o r b o th Ch ild re n” c o u ld re a so n a b ly

b e in te rp re te d to m e a n e x p e n se s (1 ) c o n n e c te d with S t. Lu k e (2 ) th a t a re

in c u rre d fo r th e p a rtie s’ c h ild re n

. T h e a d ju stm e n t p ro v isio n th u s w o uld a p pe a r

to g iv e h usb a

n d th e rig ht to d e du c t fro m his “ d ire c t c a sh p a y m e n t” h is

p ro p o rt i o n a l sh a re o f e x p e n se s fo r c h ild c a re pro v id e d b y S t. Lu k e o n c e th e

c h ild re n ’s c hild c a re wa s no lo n g e r p ro v id e d by S t. Lu k e

. In su c h a c a se

, th e re

wo u ld b e a de c re a se in th e e x p e n se s c o n n e c te d with S t. Lu k e fo r th e c are o f th e

c h ild re n

.

Alte rn a tiv e ly

, th e a d

ju stm e n t p ro v isio n c o u ld be in te rp re te d a s se ttin g a

b e n c h m ark fo r th e c o st o f th e c h ild re n ’s c h ild c a re a t th e a m o u n t c h a rg e d b y S t.

Lu k e

, re g a rd le ss o f wh o w a s p ro v id in g th e c h ild c a re

, with th e p a rtie s

m o n ito rin g St. L u k e ’s in c re a se s o r d e c re a se s in th e a m ou nt it c h arg e d fo r a fte rsc h o o l a n d su m m e r c a re a n d div id in g a n y i n c re a se s o r d e c re a se s. Bu t th e

o rd in a ry m e a

n in g o f th e te rm s o f th e a d ju stm e n t p ro v isio n m a k e s th is re a d in g

o f th e d e c re e u n c e rta in

. Th o se te rm s d e sc rib e th e e x p e n se s a s c on n e c te d with

S t. Lu k e fo r e ith e r o r b oth c h ild re n

, so it is n ot c le a r th a t e x p e n se s p ro v id e d b y

7th e b a

b y sitte r wo u ld q u a lify

.

Giv e n th e a m

b ig u ity in th e d iv o rc e de c re e re g ard in g h u sb a nd ’s o b lig a tio n

to p a y fo r a fte r-sc ho o l a n d su m m e r c are e xp e n se s p ro v id e d b y s o me o n e o th e r

th a n S t. Lu k e

, we c o n c lu de th e tria l c o u rt a b u se d it d i s c re tio n b y h o ld in g

h u sb a n d wa s i n c o n te m

p t o f th e d e c re e wh e n h e re d u c e d th e a m o u n t o f c h ild

su p p o rt pa y m e nts a fte r wife with d re w th e c h ild re n fro m S t. L uk e ’s a fte r-sc h o o l

p ro g ra m

. 3 S e e Mo rg a

n v

. Mo rg a n, 2 8 8 Ga

. 4 1 7

, 41 9 (1 ) (7 0 4 S E2 d 7 6 4) (2 0 1 1 )

(p a rty m a y n o t be h e ld in c o n te m

p t fo r v io la tio n o f c o u rt o rd e r u n le ss th a t o rd e r

in fo rm e d h im in d e fin ite te rm s o f d u tie s im p ose d u p o n h i m ); F arris v

. F a rris,

3 Our ruling does not m ean that husband m a y not b e r equired to contribute to the cost

of t he children’s af

ter-school and sum m er care e xpenses rega r d l e s s of the provider b ut sim ply

re f l e cts our conclusion that the language of the divorce decree is insuf f i ciently d ef

inite to

support a c ontem

pt f i nding b ased on the proposition that the decree is unam biguous on this

point. See Arnold v. Arnold, 236 Ga. 594, 595 (225 S E2d 30) (1976) (f ailure of the tr i al

court to h o ld husband i n willf ul contem pt f o r f ailure t o pay child s upport does n ot relieve

husband of h is o bligation to m a ke such p a y m ents under the original divorce d ecree). Nor

should our ruling be interpreted as expressing an opinion of the evidence adm itted at the

hearing related to the parties’ intent at the tim e they entered into t heir settlem ent agreem ent.

The trial cour t ’ s r u l i n g pertaining to husband’s f ailure t o pay a s h are of the child care

expenses provided by the nanny was based solely on the l a n g u a g e o f t he decree, and

theref ore, the c ourt m ade n o credibility determ i nations or f act u a l f i n d i ngs regarding other

evidence subm itted by the parties. See Roca Properties, LLC v. Dance Hotlanta, Inc., 327

Ga. App. 700, 707-708 (761 SE2d 105) (2014) (explaining that “if t he contract contains an

am biguity that cannot be resolved through the rules of construction, the c o u r t ma y look

outside the written term s of the contract and c o nsider parol e vidence” and that “ if the parol

evidence is in c onf

lict, ‘the question of what the p arties intended becom e s a f actual issue f

or

the j ury ’”) (citations om itted)). W e, likewise, express no opinion regarding these m atters in

this appeal.

82 8 5 G a

. 3 31

, 3 3 3 (1 ) (6 76 S E 2 d 2 1 2 ) (2 0 0 9 ) (b e fo re a p e rso n m a y b e h e ld in

c o n te m pt of a c o u r t o rd e r, th e o rd e r m u st in fo rm h im in e xp re ss a n d d e fin ite

te rm s o f th e du tie s im

po se d up o n h im ).

2

. It is u n d isp u te d th a t in 2 0 1 0 h u sb a n d to ok th e c h ild re n o u t o f to wn o n

wife ’s b irth d a y , th e re b y d e n y in g wife h e r c o u rt-o rd e re d c u sto d ia l tim e o n th a t

d a y

. Ac c o rd in g ly

, th e tria l c o u rt’s d e c isio n to h o ld h u sb a n d in c on te m p t fo r th e

d e n ia l of wife ’s c u sto dia l tim e is su p p o rte d b y th e re c o rd

, a nd we fin d n o a b use

o f d isc re tio n in th is ru lin g

. S e e Ho rn v. Sh e ph e rd

, 2 92 Ga

. 14 (4 ) (7 3 2 S E2 d

4 2 7 ) (2 01 2 ) (tria l c o u rt' s c on te m p t ru lin g will b e a ffirm e d on a pp e a l if th e re is

a n y e v id e n c e to su p po rt it).

3

. Hu sb a n d a lso c o n te n d s th a t th e tria l c o u rt e rre d in d e ny in g h is re q u e st

to m o d ify h is v isita tio n rig h ts.

A tria l c o u rt fa c e d with a p e titio n fo r m o d ific a tio n o f c hild c u sto d y

is c h a rg e d w ith e x e rc isin g its disc re tio n to d e te rm in e w h a t is in th e

c h ild re n ’s be st in te re st. A tria l c o u rt' s d e c isio n re g a rd in g a c h a n g e

in c u sto dy /v isita tio n will b e u p h e ld o n a p p e a l un le ss it is sh o wn th a t

th e c o u rt c le a rly a

b u se d its d isc re tio n

. Wh e re th e re is a n y e v id e n c e

to su p p o rt th e tria l c o u rt' s ru lin g

, a re v ie win g c o u rt c a n n o t sa y th e re

wa s a n a b u se of d isc re tio n

.

Vin e s v

. Vin e s, 2 9 2 Ga

. 5 5 0

, 5 5 2 (2 ) ( 7 3 9 S E2 d 3 7 4 ) (2 0 1 3) (c ita tio n s a n d

p u n c tu a tio n o m itte d ).

9Ba se d o n th e e v id e n c e p re s e n te d a t th e h e arin g a n d th e tria l c o u rt' s

c o n sid e ra tio n o f th e c h ild re n ' s b e st in te re st, we c a n n o t sa y th e re wa s a c le a r

a b u se o f d isc re tio n in th e tria l c o u r t ' s d e n ia l o f h u sb a n d’s re q u e st to m o d ify

v isita tio n

. I t wa s with in th e tria l c o urt’s d isc re tio n to c re d it w ife ’s e v id e n c e

sh o win g th a t th e c h ild re n we re th riv in g un de r th e c u rre n t visita tio n sc he d u le a n d

to d isc re d it th e c o n tra ry e vid e n c e p ro ffe re d by h u sb an d th ro u g h w itn e sse s wh o

h a d n ot se e n th e c h ild re n fo r a n u m b e r o f y e ars. S e e Urq u h a rt v. Urq u h a rt, 2 7 2

Ga

. 5 4 8

, 5 4 9 (1 ) (5 3 3 S E 2 d 8 0 ) (2 0 00 ) (“ ‘[I] t is th e d u ty o f th e tria l ju d g e to

re so lv e th e c o n flic ts in th e e v id e n c e

. . . .’ [Cit.] ” ). M o re o v e r, w e fin d n o e rro r

i n t h e le g a l b a sis o f th e tria l c o u rt’s v isita tio n ru lin g

. Co n tra ry to h u sb a n d ’ s

a sse rtio n s, th e re fe re n c e in th e fin a l o rd e r to h u sb a n d ’s fa ilu re to sh ow a c h a n g e

o f c o n d itio n fo rm e d th e b a sis o f th e tria l c o u rt’s ru lin g o n h u sb a nd ’s re q u e st fo r

m o d ific a tio n o f c h i l d c usto d y

, n o t v isita tio n

. S e e OCGA § 1 9 -9 -3 (b )

(p ro v id in g th a t v isita tio n rig h ts m a y be su b je c t to re v ie w a n d m o d ific a tio n

with ou t th e n e c e ssity o f a n y sh o win g o f a c h a n g e in m a te ria l c o n d itio ns b u t tria l

ju d g e m a y m o d ify c u sto d y “ b a se d u p o n a sh o win g of a c ha n g e in a n y m a te ria l

c o n d itio n s o r c irc u m sta n c e s o f a p a rty o r th e c h ild ” ).

4

. F in a lly

, we fin d n o m e rit in h u sb a n d ’s c la im th a t th e e ig ht m o n th d e la y

1 0b e twe e n tria l a n d e n try o f th e fin a l o rd e r d e n ie d h im h is rig h t to p ro c e d u ra l d u e

p ro c e ss u n d e r th e Fo urte e n th Am e n d m e nt o f th e U n ite d S ta te s Co n stitu tio n a n d

th e G e o rg i a Co n stitu tio n o f 19 8 3

, Art. I, S e c

. I, P a r. I. Ke e p in g in m in d th a t

“ th e re q uire m e n ts of d u e p ro c e ss a re fle x ib le an d c a ll f o r su c h p ro c e d u ra l

p ro te c tio n s a s th e p a rtic u la r situ a tio n d e m a n d s,” W ilk in so n v. Au stin

, 5 4 5 U.S

.

2 0 9

, 2 2 4 (IV) (1 2 5 SCt 2 3 8 4

, 1 6 2 L E2 d 1 74 ) (2 0 05 ) (c ita tio n a nd p u n c tu a tio n

o m itte d ), we c o n c lu d e th a t c o n sid e rin g th e n a tu re a nd histo ry o f th e p ro c e e d in g s

in th is c a se

, in c lu d in g hu sb a n d ’s d e c isio n to file a p o st-tria l, p re -ju d g m e n t

m o tio n w h ic h re qu ire d th e tria l c o u rt’s tim e a n d a tte n tio n

, th e d e la y in th e e n try

o f th e fin a l d e c re e wa s n o t u n re a so n a ble a n d d id no t re su lt in th e d e p riv a tio n o f

h u sb a n d ’s d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts. S e e C o bb Co u n ty S c h o ol Dist. v

. Ba rk e r, 2 7 1 Ga

.

3 5

, 3 7 (5 1 8 SE2 d 12 6) (1 9 9 9 ) (“ Ne ith e r th e fe de ra l n o r th e sta te c o n stitu tio n ’s

d u e p ro c e ss rig h t g u a ra n te e s a p a rtic u la r fo rm o r m e th o d o f p ro c e d u re

, b u t i s

sa tis f i e d if a p a rty h a s ‘re a so n a b le n o tic e a nd o pp ortu n ity to b e h e a rd

, a n d to

p re se nt [its] c la im o r de fe n se

, d u e re ga rd b e in g h a d to th e na tu re o f th e

p ro c e e d in g s a n d th e c h a ra c te r o f th e rig h t s w h i c h m a y b e a ffe c te d b y it.

[Cits.] ’” ). S e e g e ne ra lly D u g g a n v

. Du g g a n -S c hlitz

, 2 4 6 Ga

. A p p

. 12 7

, 1 2 8

(5 3 9 S E2 d 8 4 0 ) (2 0 0 0 ) (tria l c o u rt h a s b r o a d d isc re tio n in re gu la tin g a n d

1 1c o n tro llin g th e b usin e ss a n d c o n d u c t o f th e c o urt). Bu t se e OCGA § 19 -9 -3 (8 )

(p ro v id in g th a t “ [

i] f re q u e ste d b

y a ny p arty o n o r b e fo re th e c lo se o f e v id e n c e

in a c o n te ste d h e a rin g, th e pe rm a ne n t c o u rt o rd e r a wa rd in g c h ild c u sto d y sh a ll

se t fo rth sp e c if

i c f i n d i n g s o f fa c t a s to th e b a sis fo r th e ju d g e ’s d e c isio n

. . . .

S u c h o rd e r sh a ll be file d with in 3 0 d a y s o f th e fin a l he a rin g in th e c u sto d y c a se

,

u n le ss e x te nd e d b y o rd e r o f th e ju dg e with th e a g r e e me n t o f th e pa rtie s.” )

(e m p h a sis a d d e d ).

Hu sb a n d a lso a rg u e s th a t h e wa s d e n ie d d u e p r o ce ss b y th e tria l c o u rt’s

fa ilu re to c o n sid e r th e a rg u m e n ts p ro ffe re d in h is m otio n s fo r re c o n sid e ra tio n

.

Alth ou g h h u sb a n d is c o rre c t th a t a tria l c o u rt is o b lig a te d to “ c o n sid e r a ll fa c ts

a n d c o n d itio ns wh ic h p re se n t th e m se lv e s u p to th e t i me o f re n d e rin g a

ju d g m e n t” o n c h ild c u sto d y

, se e S h o re v

. S h o r e

, 25 3 Ga

. 1 83

, 1 8 4 (3 1 8 S E2 d

5 7 ) (1 9 8 4 )

, h e m e re ly sp e c u la te s, b a se d o n th e a b se n c e in th e fin a l ord e r o f a

d isc u ssio n o f th e in fo rm a tio n se t fo rth in th e se m o tio n s, th a t th e tria l c ou rt fa ile d

to c o n sid e r h is a rg u m e n ts. Hu sb a n d ’s c o u n se l

, h o we ve r, c o n c e d e d a t a n

Oc to b e r 2 3

, 2 0 1 2 h e a

rin g th a t t h e o r i g in a l m o tio n fo r re c on sid e ra tio n d id n o t

in c lu de a n y n e w in fo rm a tio n b u t wa s file d so le ly “ to g e t so m e so rt o f ru lin g b y

th e c ou rt,” a n d th e re is n o th in g in th e re c o rd to su pp ort h is a sse rtio n th a t th e tria l

1 2c o u rt fa ile d to c o n sid e r th e a rg u m e n ts s e t o u t i n h is se c o n d m o tio n fo r

re c o n sid e ra tio n

. We fin d n o a u th o rity

, a n d h usb a n d o ffe rs no ne

, im po sin g u p o n

a tria l c o u r t wh e n ru lin g o n a p e titio n fo r m od ific a tio n o f c h ild c u sto d y a d u e

p ro c e ss o blig a tio n to in c l u d e in its ru lin g a d isc u ssio n of e v e ry a rg u m e n t,

re g a rd le ss o f m e rit, ra ise d b y a pa rty

. S im ila rly

, w e fin d n o a bu se o f disc re tio n

in th e tria l c o u rt’s fa ilu re to h o l d a h e a rin g to a llo w h u sb a nd to p re se n t to th e

tria l c o u rt o ra lly th e sa m e in fo rm a tio n p ro v id e d in h is p re -ju d g m e n t m o tio n fo r

re c o n sid e ra tio n

.

Ju d g m e n t a ffirm e d in p a rt a n d re v e rse d in p a rt. All th e Ju stic e s c o n c u r.

1 3