1 In M arch 2013 , we transfe rr ed the case t o the Supreme Court of Georgia,

wh ich retu rne d it to this Co urt i n S ept em ber 20 13
. FI RST DI VI SI ON PH IPP S, C . J., ELLINGTON, P. J. , and BRANCH, J. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideratio n m ust be physically

received

in our clerk’s office with in ten days of the date

of decisi on to be deeme d timely filed. http://ww w.gaappeals.us/rules/ July 1 5, 2014


# In the Court of Appeals of Geo rgia A1 3A 10 20 . BA NK ST ON v. L AC HM AN
. B RANCH , Judge. The fa th er of a girl, now six years old, brings this app eal from a trial court’s orderon a p et it ionby the c hil d’s moth er . Th e tr ialcou rt suspended the father’s visi tat ion right s and found hi m in conte mpt for f ail ing to pay chil d suppo rt . 1 The father argues that

the tri al court e rredwh en it su spen ded his v isitation righ ts and also
asser ts fou r erro rs as to a pre viou s ord er de nyin g his own motion for c ontempt. The evidence support ed the trial court’s suspension of the father’s visitati on rights, an d we la ck j ur is di ct io n as to th e pr evi ous or der . We th er ef or e a ff ir m.2

The recor d shows that

the par tie s’ Febr

uary 2009 di vorce de cree grant ed th e father four hours of visi tati on per week untilthe child began kind ergarten, and every otherwe eke nd afte r tha t tim e. A s part of the partie s’ ongoing dispute over enforc ementof the divorce decree’s v is itation and chil d support provis ions, one of which resul ted i n a June 2011 adj udication of contemp t against the father for failure to pay chil d support , the fat her moved for

contempt

in Jul y 2012. After

a hear ing, and in an order dat ed Septem ber 1 8, 20 12, th e trial co urt d enied the fa ther’s mo tions to
recuse the j udge, f

or cont empt, and to s et as ide two February 2012 or ders on vis itatio n. Meanw hile, on September 7 and 18, 20 12, the trial court granted the mother’s emergency ex part e motions and her p etition to suspend the fat her’s visi tat ion pendi ng
an investigation of the mother’s allegations that over the weeken d of Au gust 24-26, the father’s 8-year -old s on by another w oman had penetrated the girl’s vag ina w ith his fingerse ve ra l tim es whi le bot h c hi ldre n we re in the fathe r’s ph ysica l custo dy. A t a hearing on October 11, 2012, the tria l court heard testi mony from the m other that on returning to the mo ther’s hou se, the girl w as fo und cuttin g off her o wn hair d ow n to the scalp in an effor t to “get [her brothe r] out

of [he r] he ad.” At the s ame hearing, the father admitt ed that

he had never

made a ful l monthl y chil d supp ort p ay men t. On3

October 31, 2012, the trial court granted the mother’s petition to suspend the father’s vis itation, f

ound the f

ather in cont empt, and ordere d the f ather to begi n paying $19,000 in over due chil d support . On Nove mber 29, 20 12, the fat her appe aled t

he October 31 o rder. A n am end ed n otice o f app eal also note d tha t t he f ather was app ealin g o nly the Oc tob er 3 1 o rde r. On app eal, the fathe r argu es th at t he tria l c ourt e rred in the cour se of procee dings on the father’s motion for cont empt when it denied his motion to recuse the judge, limi ted the father’ s cross-examination of the mother, quashed a subpoena of the chi ld’s doc tor, and declined to ho ld the mother in con tempt. The father also argues that th e trial co urt’s s usp ensio n of his v isitatio n at th e conclusion of procee dings on the mothe r’s pe tition was not s up porte d by the evi dence. We have jurisdiction over only the last of these assertions. 1. The father’s fir st f

our ass ert ed err ors conc ern proc eedings in the fathe r’ s contempt acti on agains t the mother culminating in the order of September

18, 2012, wh ich wa s no t tim ely app eale d. W e th eref ore lack juri sdi ctio n. The order of September 18, 2 012 , resolv ed all is sues raised in pr ocee ding s in the father’s motion for con tempt, including his request to set aside previous o rders2 As our Supr eme Court re cently held i n Murphy v. Murphy , ___ Ga. ___ (Case

No. S13G 1651, decided June 30, 20 14), direct appeals under the form er ver sion of OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) ( 11 ), s till in effect at the time the judgmen ts before us were enter ed, were “limite d to ‘orders in a child cust ody case regarding which parent has cus t ody regardles s of final ity. ’” Murphy , ___ Ga. at ___ (emphasis in original), quoting Edge v. Edge , 290 Ga. 55 1, 552 (1) (722 SE2d 749) (201 2). 4 concerning visit ation, and was thus directly appealabl e. 2 See Edge , 290 Ga. at 553 (1) (an ord er settin g asid e “a r uling elim inatin g [a fa ther’s ] right of visit at ion [w as] a ‘cust ody case’ subje ct to dir ectappeal ”). As a fina l dis posit ion on the f ather ’s moti on, the or de r o f S ep te mbe r 1 8, 201 2, was subj ec t to the timel in es s r equi re men ts of OCGA § 5-6-38 (a), which pro vide s that a notic e of a ppe al “sh all be f iled w ithin 30 days after entry of the appeala

ble decisi on or judgment complained of.” If such an adjudi cati on is not appealed within 30 days, an appealtaken a fte r that time is prope rly di smisse d. In re Booker , 186 Ga. App. 614 (367 SE2d 850) (1988) ( dismis sing appe al f rom judgm ent of contemp t as untimely und er OCG A § 5 -6-38 (a)). Itis tr ue t hat und er OCGA § 5- 6- 34 ( d) , a par tyma y appeal a p revio usly unappealed order “ render ed in the cas e . . . without re gard t o the appe alabi lit y of the judg me nt, ruling or ord er . . . appeal ed from.” See In re I . S. , 278 Ga. 859, 860-861 (607 SE2d 546) (2005) (a party t aking a timely appealfrom an order in a deprivat ion procee ding could cha lle nge an earlie r, una ppeale d d epriv ati on order by virtue of5

OCGA § 5- 6-3 4 (d )). He re, ho we ver, th e “ca se” as to w hich th e f ather asser ts f our
errors is his o wn con tem pt m otion again st the m othe r, wh ich w as the sub je ct of the app ealab le judgment of September

18, 2012, whereas t

he mother’ s petition f or contempt and to m od ify c ust od y, which re ceive d a dif fere nt cas e number, was the sub ject o f the jud gm ent of O cto ber 31 , 20 12
. As we noted i n Carden v. Carden , 266 Ga. App. 149, 150 (1) ( 596 SE2d 686) (2004), a con tem pt pr ocee ding is “an cillary ” to th e actio n fro m w hich itarises . Id. at 150 (1). As a resul t, we held, a son was bar red from filing a counte rcl aim for contempt in his mothe r’s c ontempt pr oc ee di ngs ag ai ns t h im , an d wa s r equi re d t o f il e h is own “sep arate acti on” for c ontempt. Id. at 150 (1) , ci ting Baer v. Baer , 263 Ga. 574, 575 (1) (436 SE 2d 6) (1 99 3). Here, the f ather fai led t o appealthe f

inaljudgment of September 18, 2 012 , with in 30 day s of th at jud gm ent’s entry . To a utho rize h im to asserterrors as to that j udgment on this appeal would en able any cu stod y litiga nt to revi ve this Court’s jurisdi ction over an unappeale d co ntem pt jud gm ent in a child custodymatter when ever any other a ppe ala ble j udgment is sued, even if the se cond
were to appear mo nths or years after the first . Because nothing in OCGA § 5-6-34 ( d) authorizes an ap pel lant thus t o revi sit

unappeal ed fi nal di spositions i n contempt procee dings ancilla ry to child custo dy c ases, th is Co urt has no juri sdiction over the6

Sep tember 18 ju dgm ent. O CG A § 5-6 -38 (a); In re Booker , 18 6 G a. A pp . at 61 4 (dis missi ng app eal of

judg me nt of

con te m pt as untimely) . Compare Ham monds v. Parks , 319 Ga . Ap p. 79 2, 79 3-7 94 ( 2) (7 35 S E2 d 80 1) (2 012 ) (in fa ther’s time ly appeal from fi nal or ders on r eserved iss ues of c ustody, chil d s upport, and fees , and also find ing f

ather in co ntem pt, ap pellate court hadjurisdi ction over earlier , non-final rulings on con tempt, custody, and ch ild support und er OCG A § 5 -6-34 (d)). 2. The father having t imely appealed the order of October31, 2012, this Court has juri sdiction over

his as sertion that the tri al cour t erred wh en it su spen ded his visita tion
. See Edge , 290 Ga. at 552- 553 (1) ( tri al cour t’s eli minati on of vis itation righ ts w as d irec tly a pp eala ble ). Wh en conside ring a disput e regarding t he cust ody of

a child, a trialcourt has very broad discr eti on, l ooking al ways to the best inte rest of the chil d. Th is Co urt w ill not interfere unless the evi dence shows aclear abuse of discr eti on, and where there is any evidenc e to support the trial court’s find ing , we wi ll no t fin d th ere w as a n ab use of d iscr etio n. Williams v. Williams , 295 Ga. 113 (1) ( 757 SE2d 85 9) (2014) (ci tat ions and punctuation omitted). “We are [also] mindfulthatthe Solom onic task of mak ing these decis ions lies square ly upon the shoul ders of the j udge who can see and hear the partie s and their witnesses, obser ve t heir demea nor and attitud es, an d ass ess th eir7

cred ibili ty.” Sm ith v. C urtis , 316 Ga. App. 890, 892 (730 SE2d 604) (2012) (ci tat ions and pu nct uat ion om itted ). The recor d at the hear ing on the mother’ s petition c ontai ns rea sona ble evide nce, including the mother’s testimony as to her daughter ’s traumati zed behavi or aft er being
sexu ally molest ed by her ha lf- brothe r, s upporting the tria l court’ s determinat ion that any visit ation with t

he child’s f

ather was not in her

best in terests pending r esolution of the in vesti gat ion into the hal f-b roth er’s beh avi or. Sm ith , 316 Ga. App. at 892 (aff irming tri al cour

t’s judgment r evoking a f ather ’s vi sit ati on rights when supported by evidence that

the father’s haras sment of the chil d’s mother result ed in obsessivecom pu lsiv e be hav ior b y th e ch ild)
. For the r easons s tat ed above, we di smiss the fa ther’s app eal to th e exte nt it
asser ts errors as to the September 18, 2012 orderon the father’s motion, and w e affirm the trial c ou rt’s o rde r of Oc tob er 3 1, 2 01 2, o n th e m oth er’s pet ition
. Judg men taffirmed in part and appeal di

smisse d in part. Phipps, C. J ., and Ellington, P. J. , conc ur .