FI FTH DI VI SI ON

RI CKM A N, C. J.

, M CFA DDEN, P. J.

, and SENI OR A PPELLA TE JUDGE PHI PPS.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be

ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n

da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

https ://w w w

. ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s

D E A D LIN E S A R E N O LO N G E R TO LLE D IN T

H I S

C O U R T. A LL FILIN G S M U ST B E S U B M I TTE D WITH IN

TH E TIM E S S E T B Y

O U R C O U R T R U LE S

.

A ugust 11, 2021



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A2 1 A0 77 4 . LEACH v . W ARNER.

P H I P P S , Sen i o r Ap p el l at e J u d g e.

J o d i Leach

, t h e m o th er of m i n o r ch il d P

. B., ap p eal s fro m an o rd er award i n g

Co n n i e Sag en W arn er, th e ch i l d ’ s p at ern al g ran d m o th er, vi s i t at i o n wi t h t h e c h i l d.

Leach as sert s t h at t h e ev i d en ce was i n su ffi ci en t t o s u p po rt t he v i s i t at i o n award an d

t h at a p o rt i o n o f t he g ran d p aren t v i s it at i on s t at u t e, OCGA § 1 9 -7 -3 (c), i s

u n co ns t it u t i o n al . W e fi n d n o erro r an d affi rm

.

W h en co n s i d eri n g an ap peal fro m an o rd er g ran t i n g g ran d paren t v i s it at i o n

, t h i s

Co u rt m u s t “ v i ew t h e ev id en ce i n t h e li g h t m o s t fav o rab l e t o t h e t ri al co urt ’ s

ju d g m en t t o d et erm i n e wh e t h er an y rat i o n al t ri er of fact co ul d h av e fo u n d b y cl ear

an d co n v i n ci n g ev i d en ce t hat t h e m an d at ed v i s i tat i o n was au th o ri zed .” El mo r e v.

Cl a y

, 3 4 8 Ga. Ap p

. 62 5

, 62 5 (8 2 4 SE2 d 8 4 ) ( 2 0 1 9 ) (ci t at i o n an d pu n ct u at i o no m it t ed ). I n co n d u ct i n g o u r rev i ew, “ [w] e d o n ot wei g h t he ev i d en ce o r d et erm i n e

wi t n es s cred i b i l i t y, b u t d efer to t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s fact fi n d i n g an d affi rm u n l es s t h e

ev i d en ce fai l s to sat is fy t h e ap p el l at e s t an d ard o f r e v i e w .” Id

. (ci t at i o n an d

p u n ct u at i o n o m it t ed ).

So v i ewed

, t h e reco rd sh o ws t h at P. B. was b orn i n 2 0 1 0 t o Leach an d J o s ep h

Berry

, t h e fat h er o f t h e ch i l d an d a res p o n d e n t i n t h e u n d erl y i n g act i on

. 1 W arn er i s

Berry ’ s m o t h er an d th e p at ern al g ran d m o th er o f P. B. T h e c h i l d w a s b o rn i n San

Di eg o

, an d W arn er f

l ew to s ee h er an d sp en d t i m e w it h h er ap pro x i m at el y a week

aft er s h e was b o rn

. W arn er s p e n t “ m a n y, m an y

, m an y m o n t h s in San Di eg o t ak i n g

care of [P. B.] .” Sh e al s o p ai d t o fl y P. B. an d Leach t o h er h ou s e w h en P. B. w as v ery

y o u n g a n d Berry

, wh o i s i n t h e M ari n e Co rp s

, was t rai n in g

. Acco rd i n g t o W arn er,

Leach an d Berry b eg an d i v o rce p ro ceed i n g s wh en P. B. was ten m o n t h s o l d

, an d t h e

d i v o rce was fi n al i zed wh en s h e was a b o u t ei gh t een m o n th s o l d

. Berry recei v ed

p ri m ary cu s t o d y o f P. B. at t hat t i m e, an d W arn er fl ew b ack an d fo rt h t o San Di eg o,

s p en di n g ap p ro x i m at el y two -an d -a-h al f w eek s ev ery m o nt h tak i ng care o f P. B.

W arn er “ was l ik e a m o t h er [t o P. B.] at t h at p o i n t[,] ” an d W arn er’ s hu s ban d wo rk ed

o v ert i m e t o s u p p o rt two b o t h W arn er’ s an d Berry ’ s h o u s eh o ld s

. T hi s a r r an g em en t

1 Berry d i d n o t fi le a res p o n s i v e p lead i ng

.

2co n ti n u ed u n ti l O ct ob er 2 01 4

, w h e n B e rry g av e p ri m ary cu s to d y o f P. B. t o Leach

b ecau s e he h ad recei v ed o rd ers fro m t h e M ari n e Co rp s t o m ov e t o Fl o ri da, b u t h e

co u ld n o t l eg al l y rem o ve P. B. fro m Cal i fo rn i a.

Leach u l t i m at el y m o v ed t o Geo rg i a i n Feb ru ary 20 1 5, an d at t h at p o i n t

, W arn er

o n l y s aw P. B. fo r t w o t o t h ree week s each s um m er d u ri n g Berry ’ s vi s i t at i o n p eri o d.

W arn er an d h er hu s ban d p ai d fo r a v acat i o n t ri p wi th P. B. an d Berry ev ery s u m m er

u n t i l t h e s u m

m er of 2 0 1 7

, wh en Berry cu t t i es wi t h W arn er b ecau se th ey h ad a fi g h t

.

Th e fi gh t cen t ered a r o u n d W arn er’ s h u s b an d ’ s b eh av io r wi th P. B.; h e wan t ed to

wres t l e w i t h P. B., m ad e nu m ero u s effo rt s t o b e al on e wi t h P. B., an d h i d i n t h e l azy

ri ver at Di s n ey

W o rl d wi t h P. B.

Un ab l e to g ai n acces s t o P. B. t h ro u g h h er s o n

, W arn er reach ed o u t t o Leach

i n Sep t em

b er 2 0 17 an d req ues t ed co n t act wi t h P. B

. L e a c h ag reed an d al l o wed

Wa r n e r t o v is i t P. B. i n Geo rg i a i n 2 01 7 an d al l o wed P. B. t o v i si t W arn er t wi ce in

Co l orad o i n 20 1 8

. Leach al s o al l o w ed W arn er t o FaceTi m e an d cal l P. B. A cco rd i n g

t o W arn er, s h e FaceTi m ed w i t h P. B. at l eas t o n ce p er week

, b u t Leach tes t ifi ed t h at

W arn er o n l y FaceTi m ed wi t h P. B. “ m ay b e t en t i m es ” fro m 2 0 1 7 u n t i l Leach ceas ed

co m m u n icat io ns wi t h W arn er i n 2 0 1 9.

3In No v em b er 2 0 1 8

, Leach fi led fo r an d was award ed s o l e p hy s i cal cu s t o d y o f

P. B.; Berry m is s ed t h e co u rt d at e d u e t o hi s t rai n in g an d d ep lo y m en t

. W arn er

s u p p ort ed Leach ’ s cl ai m f o r c u s t o d y

. In t h e s u m

m er of 2 0 1 9

, Berry ret u rn ed fro m

d ep lo y m en t an d t o l d L each th at h e d i d n ot wan t W arn er t o h av e co n t act wi t h P. B. As

a res u l t

, Leach t erm i n at ed P. B.’ s co n t act wi t h W arn er. Leach tes t ifi ed t hat ev en

b efo re s h e cu t o ff W arn er’ s co n t act wi t h P. B., s h e h ad s o m e co n cern s wi t h v i s i t at i o n

b et ween P. B. a n d Wa r n e r b e c au s e s h e had l earn ed t h at P. B. s l ep t in t h e bed wi th

W arn er an d h er h u s b an d wh en s h e v i s i t ed

.

W arn er fi led a pet i t i o n fo r g ran d p aren t v i s i t at i on ri g h ts i n M arch 2 0 2 0

, s eek i n g

reas on ab l e v i s it at i o n p u rs u an t t o OCGA § 1 9 -7 -3 . Fo ll o wi n g a b en ch t ri al

, t h e t ri al

co u rt g ran t ed W arn er’ s p et it i on

, s p eci fi cal l y fi n d i n g t h at W arn er h ad an es t ab l i s h ed

p at t ern o f reg u lar v is i t at i o n wi th P. B., t h e wel fare o f P. B. wo u ld b e harm ed u n l es s

v i s i t at i o n was g ran ted

, an d i t w as i n t he bes t i n t eres t o f P. B. to h av e co n t act an d

v i s i t at i o n wi t h W arn er. W arn er was g r a n t e d a week ly FaceTi m e o r p h o n e cal l wi th

P. B. at a reas o n ab l e t i m e fo r n o m o re t h an t hi rt y m i n u t e s

, a m o n t h l y in -p ers o n 2 4

-

h o u r v i s i t, an d o n e t h ree-d ay i n -p ers o n v i s i t each s u m m er. Leach ap p eal s t h i s o rd er.

1

. Leach fi rs t as s ert s t h at t h e ev i d en ce was i n s u ffi ci en t t o su p po r t t h e t ri al

co u rt ’ s v is i t at i o n award t o W arn er u n d er OCGA § 1 9 -7 -3 . W e d i s ag ree.

4OCGA § 1 9-7 -3

, t h e Gran d p aren t Vi s i t at i o n St at u t e, “ was en act ed t o p ro v i d e

a m ech an i s m fo r co u rt s t o g ran t a g ran d p aren t vi si t at i o n ri g h ts wi th h i s o r h er m i n o r

g ran d ch il d

, wh ere, as h ere, a ch i l d ’ s p aren t o b ject s .” Lu ke v. Lu ke

, 2 80 G a. Ap p

. 6 0 7,

6 1 1 (3 ) (6 3 4 SE2 d 43 9 ) (2 0 0 6 ). Th e st at u t e “ co di fi es a s tan d ard fo r t h e tri al co u rt s

t o u ti l i ze i n b al an ci n g t h e in t eres t s o f t h e c h i l d

, t h e ri g h ts o f t he p aren t s

, an d t h e

wi s h es o f an al i en at ed g ran d paren t .” Id

. Un d er OCGA § 1 9 -7 -3 (c) (1 ), a co u rt m ay

g ran t a fam i l y m e m

b e r r e a s o n ab l e v i s i t at i o n ri g ht s “ i f t he co u rt fi n ds b y cl ear an d

co n vi n ci n g ev id en ce t h at t h e h eal t h o r wel fare o f t h e ch i l d wo u l d b e h arm ed u n l es s

s u ch v i s i tat i o n i s g ran t ed an d if t h e b es t i n t eres t s of t h e ch il d wo u ld b e s erv ed b y s u ch

v i s i t at i o n .” Th e s tat u t e fu rt h er p ro vi d es :

In co n s i d eri n g wh et h er t h e h eal t h o r wel fare o f t he ch i l d wo u l d be

h arm ed w i t ho u t s u ch v i s i t a t i o n

, t h e co u rt s h al l co ns i d er an d m ay fi n d

t h at h arm t o t h e ch il d i s re as on ab l y l ik el y t o res u l t wh en

, p ri o r to th e

o ri g in al act io n o r i n t erv en t i on :

(A) Th e m i n o r ch i l d res i d ed wi t h t h e fam i l y m em b er fo r s i x

m o n th s o r m o re;

(B) Th e fam i l y m em

b er p ro v i d ed fi n an ci al su p po rt fo r th e

b as i c n eed s o f t h e ch i l d fo r at l eas t o ne y ear;

(C) Th ere was an es t ab l i s h ed p at t ern o f reg u l ar v i s i t at i o n

o r ch i l d care b y t h e fam i l y m em b er wi th t h e ch i l d ; o r

5(D) An y o t her ci rcu m s tan ce ex i s t s in d i cat i n g t hat

em o t io n al o r p h y s i cal h arm wo ul d b e reas o n ab l y

l i kel y t o

res u l t i f s u ch v i s i t at i o n i s n o t g ran t ed

.

OCGA § 1 9 -7 -3 (c) (1 ).

“ W h ere a p et i t i o n i n g g ran d p aren t m eet s t h i s s t an dard , a t ri al co u rt m ay g ran t

v i s i t at i o n

— n ot wi t h s t an d i n g ev i d en ce o r ci rcu m st an ces t h at wei g h ag ai n s t a g ran t

o f v i s i t at i o n.” Lu ke

, 2 8 0 Ga

. A p p

. a t 6 1 1 (3 ). In fact

, acco rd i n g t o OCGA § 1 9 -7 -3

(c) (3 ),

[w] h i l e a p aren t ’ s d eci s i on reg ard in g fam i l y m em b er v i s it at i o n sh al l be

g i v en d eferen ce b y t h e co u rt

, t h e p aren t ’ s d eci s i o n s hal l n o t be

co n cl u s i v e wh en fai l u re t o p ro v i d e fam i l y m em b er co n t act wo u l d res u l t

i n em o t i o n al h arm t o t h e ch i l d

. A co u rt m ay pres u m e t h at a ch i ld wh o i s

d en i ed an y co n tact wi t h h i s o r h er fam i l y m em ber o r w h o is n o t p ro v i d ed

s o m e m in i m al o pp o rt u n i t y f o r co nt act wi t h h i s o r h er fam i l y m em b er

wh en t h ere is a p reex i st i n g rel at i o n s h i p b et ween th e ch i l d an d s u ch

fam i l y m em

b er m ay s uffer em o ti on al i n ju ry t h at is h arm fu l t o s u ch

ch i l d ’ s h eal t h . Su ch p res u m p t i o n s h al l b e a reb u t t ab l e p res u m p t i o n

.

Leach arg u es t h at W arn er fai l ed t o p res en t cl ear an d co n v i n ci n g ev i d en ce

es t ab l i s h in g a p at t ern o f reg u l ar v is i tat i on

, as req u i red t o s u pp o rt a g ran t o f v i s i t at i o n

ri gh t s u n der O CGA § 1 9-7 -3 (c) (1 ) (C). Acco rd i n g t o Leach

, s h e h ad n o co n t act wi th

W arn er fro m t he t i m e Leach recei v ed fu l l p h y s i cal cu s t o dy o f P. B. i n 2 01 4 un t i l l at e

2 0 1 7

. Ho wev er, t h e reco rd b el i es t h i s as s ert i o n

, s h o wi n g i n s t ead th at d u ri ng t h i s t i m e,

W arn er co n t in ued v i s i tat i o n an d co n t act wi t h P. B. wh en Berry h ad vi s i t at i o n d u ri n g

6t h e s u m

m er. Al t h ou g h Berry o n l y had v i s i t at i o n wi t h P. B. in t h e s u m m er d u ri n g t h i s

t i m e fram e, W arn er t o o k fu l l ad v an t ag e o f t h e o p p o rt u n i t y fo r co n tact wi t h P. B. an d

s p en t two t o t h ree week s wi t h h er each s u m m er. In ad d i t i o n

, a f

t er Berry d en i ed

W arn er co n t act wi t h P. B. i n 2 0 1 7

, W arn er reach ed ou t t o Leach an d b eg an FaceTi m e

an d i n -p ers o n co n t act wi t h P. B. t h ro u g h Leach u nt i l Leach en d ed W arn er’ s co n t act

wi t h P. B. i n t h e s u m m e r o f 2 0 1 9

. Co n t rary to Leach ’ s arg u m en t

, t h e reco rd

es t ab l i s h es cl ear an d co n v i n ci n g ev i d en ce o f a h is t o ri cal p at t ern o f reg u l ar v i s i t at i o n

b y W arn er. See OCGA § 1 9-7 -3 (c) (1 ) (C).

Leach al s o arg u es t hat W arn er fai l ed t o p ro v i d e fi n an ci al as si st an ce fo r P. B.’ s

b as i c n eed s o r ch i ld care aft er Leach recei v ed fu ll -t i m e p h y s i cal cu s to d y o f P. B. Ev en

i f t h i s were t ru e, a t ri al co u rt i s n o t req u ired t o fi n d b ot h a p at t ern o f reg u l ar v i s i t at i o n

a n d fi n an ci al as s is t an ce o r a p at t ern o f reg u l ar v is i tat i o n a n d c h i l d care t o award

g ran d p aren t v i s i tat i o n u n d er OCGA § 19 -7 -3 (c) (1 ) b ecau s e s u b s ect i o n s (A) t h ro u g h

(D) of t h e s t at u t e an d t h e act i o n s co n t ai n ed i n s u b s ect i o n (C) o f t h e s t at u t e are wri t t en

i n t h e d i s ju n ct i v e. “ Th e n at u ral m ean in g o f ‘ o r,’ w h e re u s ed as a co nn ect i v e, i s to

m ark an al t ern at i v e an d p res en t ch oi ce, i m p l y i n g an el ect i o n to d o o n e o f t w o t h i n g s .”

Ha u g en v. Hen r

y Co u n t y

, 2 7 7 Ga. 7 4 3

, 7 4 4 -7 45 (2 ) (5 9 4 SE2 d 32 4 ) (2 0 0 4 ) (ci t at i o n

an d pu n ct u at i o n om i t t ed ). A n d

, “ w h e r e a l eg i s l at i v e pro v is i on is p h ras ed i n t h e

7d i s

ju nct iv e, i t m

u s t b e s o co n s t ru ed ab sen t a cl ear i n di cat io n t h at a d is ju n ct i v e

co n st ru ct i o n i s co n t rary t o t he l eg i s l at i v e in t en t .” Gea r i n g er v. Lee

, 2 6 6 Ga. 1 6 7

, 1 6 9

(2 ) (4 65 SE2 d 4 40 ) (1 9 9 6 ).

Las t o f al l , Leach m ai n t ai n s t hat s h e “ d eci d ed i n h er cap aci t y as a p aren t t h at

fu rt her v is i t at i o n o f h er ch i ld b y Ap p el l ee W arn er w as n o t i n t h e b es t i n t eres t o f h er

ch i l d [,] ” an d th e t ri al co u rt ’ s g ran t o f v i si t at i o n ri g h ts t o W arn er i n fri ng es o n Leach ’ s

ri gh t t o d i rect th e u pb ri n g i n g o f h er ch i l d an d t h e p res um p t i o n t h at a fi t p aren t s act s

i n t h e b es t i n t eres t s of her ch i l d

. Th i s Co u rt

, ho wev er, al read y h as ad dres s ed an d

reject ed th i s co n t en t i o n

. It i s wel l es t ab l is hed t h at “ Geo rg ia l aw ex p res s l y p ro v i d es

t h at wh i l e a p aren t ’ s d eci s i on [reg ard i n g fam i l y -m em b er v i s i t at i on ] s h al l b e g i v en

d eferen ce b y t he co u rt

, t h e paren t ’ s d eci s i o n s h al l n ot b e co n cl us i v e w h en fai l u re to

p ro v id e g ran dp aren t co n t act w o u l d r e s u l t i n em ot i o n al h arm t o t h e ch i l d .” Kei t h v.

Ca l la h a n

, 3 3 2 Ga. Ap p

. 2 9 1

, 2 9 2 -2 9 3 (1 ) (7 72 SE2 d 3 8 6 ) (2 01 5 ) (ci t at i o n an d

p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ; em

p h as i s i n o ri g i n al ). See al s o OCGA § 1 9 -7 -3 (c) (3 ). In fact

,

a s a l read y s t at ed

, OCGA § 19 -7 -3 “ was en act ed t o p ro v i d e a m ech an i s m fo r c o u r t s

t o g ran t a g r a n d p aren t v i s i t at i o n ri g h t s wi t h h i s o r h er m in o r g ran d ch i ld

, w h ere, as

h ere, a ch i l d ’ s p aren t o b

j ect s

. ” Lu ke

, 2 8 0 Ga. Ap p

. at 6 1 1 (3 ); acco rd Kei t h

, 3 3 2 Ga.

Ap p

. at 2 9 3 (1 ). Here, t h e t ri al co u r t e x p res s l y fo u nd t h at n o t o n l y wo u l d P. B.’ s

8wel fare b e h arm ed u n l es s v is i t at i o n wi t h W arn er was g ran t ed

, b u t al s o t h at P. B. “ m ay

s u ffer em o t i o n al i n

ju ry t h at i s h arm fu l t o [h er] h eal t h ” i f s h e was d en i ed co n t act wi th

W arn er.

W e reject L each ’ s co n ten t i o n t h at t h e t ri al co u rt g av e n o d efere n c e t o h er

c o n c e rn s reg ard i n g W arn er’ s hu s b an d ’ s act io n s i n craft i n g t h e v i si tat i o n s ch ed u l e.

In d eed

, th e t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er sp eci fi cal l y st at es t hat W arn er “ s h al l su p erv is e t h e ch i ld

d u ri n g t h e v i s i t s an d s h a l l n o t l eav e t h e ch i l d al o n e an d u n at t en d ed wi t h h er

h u s b an d [.] ”

Vi ewi n g t h e ev i den ce in t h e l i g h t m o s t fav orab l e t o t he t ri al co urt ’ s ju d g m en t

a n d w i th d eferen ce t o t he tri al co urt ’ s fact fi n di n g

, w e co n cl u de t h at a rat i o n a l

fact fi n d er co ul d h av e fo u n d t h at m an d at o ry v i s it at i o n wi t h W arn er was au t h o ri zed

u n d er OCGA § 19 -7 -3 (c). See El mo r e , 3 4 8 Ga. Ap p . at 6 2 5

.

2

. Leach s p en d s t h e b ul k o f her ap p el l at e b ri ef arg u i n g t hat OCGA § 1 9 -7 -3 (c)

i s un co n s t i t u t i on al on i t s face. Ho wev er, Leach d i d n o t rai s e t h i s co n s t i t u t i o n al cl ai m

b el o w, n or d i d t h e t ri al co u rt ru l e o n t h e co n s t i t u t i o nal i s s u e. Acco rd in g ly

, Leach ’ s

co n st i t u t io n al ch al l en g e i s n o t p ro p erl y b efo re th i s Co u rt

. See Cl a r k v. S t a t e

, 2 3 6 Ga.

Ap p . 1 5 3

, 1 5 5 (2 ) (5 1 0 SE2 d 90 7 ) (1 9 9 9 ) (“ Th i s Co urt wi ll n o t co n s i d er i ss u es an d

9g ro u nd s fo r o b ject i o n , ev en o f co n s t i t u t i o n al m ag n i t ud e, wh i ch were n o t rai s ed an d

d et erm i n ed i n t h e t ri al co u rt .”).

Leach at t em

p t s t o ci rcu m

v en t t h i s p ro ced ural d efect b y arg ui n g t h at s h e rai s ed

t h i s co n s t i t u t i o n a l cl ai m i n h er res p o ns e t o W arn er’ s p et i t i o n fo r g ran d p aren t

v i s i t at i o n ri g h t s

. Sp eci fi cal l y

, L e a c h p o i n t s t o th e fo l l o wi n g as s ert i on fro m h er

res p o n s e as p ro o f t h at s h e rai s ed t h i s cl ai m b el o w:

Du ri n g p ri o r vi s it s b y Pet i t i on er, Res p o n d en t Leach s t at es t h at th e

Pet i t i o ner co n si s t en t ly s h o wed a p en ch an t f o r u n d e r m i n i n g

Res p o n d en t ’ s leg i t i m at e i n t eres t an d co n s t i t u t io n al ri gh t t o rai s e h er

ch i l d as s he s ees fi t an d in a way s h e, Res p o nd en t Leach

, b el i ev es t o be

i n t h e b es t i n t eres t o f t h e Ch i l d

.

Co n t rary t o Leach ’ s as s ert i o n , h o wev er, h er res p o n s e d i d n o t as sert a co n s t i t u t i o n al

arg u m en t

. In fact

, n o w h ere in t h e res p on s e d o es L each rai s e a n y i s s u e wi t h t h e

co n st i t u t io n al i ty o f OCGA § 1 9 -7

- 3 ( c). See In r e L. C.

, 2 7 3 Ga. 8 8 6, 8 89 (2 ) (5 4 8

SE2 d 3 3 5 ) (2 0 0 1 ) (co n s ti t u t i o nal ch al len g e n o t p ro p erl y rai s ed wh en p art y d o es n ot

s p eci fy ei t h er th e part i cu l ar p art o r p art s o f t h e s t at u t e b ei ng ch al len g ed or h o w t h o s e

p art o r p art s o f t h e s t at u te v i o l at ed a co n s t i t u ti o n al p ro v i s i o n). Nei t h er d id Leach rai s e

a co n s t i t ut i o n al arg u m en t d u ri n g t ri al

. Leach po i nt s t o h er t ri al at to rn ey ’ s cl o s i n g

arg u m en t

, w h ere h e s t at ed

, “ An d I m y s el f q u es t i on t h e co n s t it u ti o n al [i t y ] o f Sect i o n

1 9 -7 -3 bu t t h at ’ s of m

y o w n o p i n i o n .” Th i s p as s i n g s t at em en t m ad e d u ri n g cl o s i n g

10arg u m en t i s n o t s u ffi ci en t t o rai s e a co n s t i t u t i o n al cl ai m

. See In r e L. C. , 2 7 3 Ga. at

8 8 9 (2 ).

M o reo v er, t h e t ri al co u rt d i d n o t a d d res s an y co n s t i t u t i o n al cl ai m

, an d t h i s

Co u rt wi l l n o t co n s i d er th e co n s t i t u t i o n al i ty o f a s t at u t e “ u n les s i t cl earl y ap p ears in

t h e reco rd t h at t h e p o i n t w a s d i rect l y an d pro p erl y m ad e i n th e co u rt b el o w an d

d i s t i n ct l y p as s ed o n by t h e t ri al ju d g e.” W i l s o n v. S t a t e

, 2 12 Ga. 1 5 7

, 1 5 8 ( 1 ) ( 9 1

SE2 d 1 6 ) (1 9 5 6); acco rd Br ewer v. S ta t e o f Ga

. , 2 8 1 Ga. 28 3

, 2 8 4 (2 ) (6 3 7 SE2 d 6 7 7 )

(2 0 0 6) (“ Ap p el l an t ’ s arg u m en t u n der t h e St at e Co n s t it u t i o n was n o t rai s ed an d ru l ed

o n bel o w an d t h us we d o n o t ad d res s i t .”); Lu ca s v. Lu ca s

, 2 7 3 Ga. 2 4 0, 2 4 2 (3 ) (5 3 9

SE2 d 8 0 7) (2 0 0 0 ) (“ T h i s Co u rt wi l l n o t ru l e o n a ch al l en g e t o t he co n s t i t u t i o n al i t y o f

a st at u t e u n l es s t h e i s s u e h as b een rai s ed an d ru l ed o n i n t h e t ri al co u rt .”).

Acco rd i n g l y

, Leach ’ s co n s t i t u t i o n al arg u m en t h as n ot been p res erv ed fo r ap p el l at e

rev i ew.

Ju d g men t a f f i r m ed . Ri ckma n , C. J., a n d McFa d d en , P. J., co n cu r

.

11