FIRST DIVISION

BARNES, P. J.,

GOBEIL and PIPKIN, JJ.

NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be

physically received in our clerk’s office within ten

days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.

https://www.gaappeals.us/rules

June 25, 2024

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia

A24A0269. FINCH v. WALDEN.

GOBEIL, Judge.

This is the third appearance of this matter before this Court. See In the Interest

of S. W., 363 Ga. App. 666 (872 SE2d 316) (2022) (“Finch I”); Finch v. Walden, 368

Ga.App. 46 (889 SE2d 144) (2023) (“Finch II”).In the current appeal, Chelsea Finch

appeals fromthe trial court’stemporary order awarding custody ofthe parties’minor

child, S. W., to Justin Walden, granting supervised visitation to Finch, and denying

Finch’s claim for habeas corpus to have S. W. returned to her. On appeal, Finch

asserts: (1) denial of due process for issuing the latest order without an additional

hearing and for punishing her for appealing the previous order; (2) error in the merits
of the change-of-custody order; and (3) error in the merits of denying the habeas

claim. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the trial court’s order.

Here, the record shows that Finch and Walden shared custody of S. W. by

virtue of an Order of Legitimation entered in October 2014, in which the parties

shared legal custody and Finch was the child’s primary physical custodian. Walden

“had visitation according to a set schedule.”

As described in Finch II, the factual and procedural background of this case is

summarized as follows.

In May 2019, the Department of Family and Children Services

(“DFCS”) received a report regarding the death of S.W.’s two-year-old

sibling.1 DFCS then took S. W. into its custody and placed her in

Walden’s care. DFCS filed a dependency petition and a complaint

requesting that Walden have primary physical custody of S. W., alleging

that S.W.was deprived due to inadequate supervision and“unexplained

child injuries.” In a series of orders, the juvenile court found that S. W.

was dependent, and it gave Walden sole primary custody of S. W. On

appeal,we vacatedthe juvenile court’s orders for failing tomake findings

1 Finch’s boyfriend, Michael Sconyers, was later found guilty of murdering S.

W.’s sibling, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment.

2
of fact and conclusions of law and for failing to provide reasons for the

court’s disposition as required in dependency proceedings. [2]

Following remand, Walden filed a complaint for change of custody in

Columbia County Superior Court, seeking child support and sole legal

and physical custody of S. W. Specifically, Walden contended that there

were numerous domestic incidents at Finch’s home prior to the death of

S. W.’ssibling and that Finch continues to have a romantic relationship

with Sconyers despite his conviction for the murder of S. W.’s sibling.

Finch answered the complaint and asserted a counterclaim for habeas

corpus relief, arguing that the court had to return S. W. to her custody

because the juvenile court’s orders had been vacated on appeal and that

there was no legal basis for Walden to continue to have custody of S. W.

At the conclusion of the hearing [3] but prior to its ruling, the trial court

asked the parties ifthere was any other evidence to be presented. Finch’s

counsel orally requested that the court make findings of fact and

conclusions of law in entering its order. . . . After the hearing, the trial

court entered a temporary order granting Walden sole legal and physical

2

See Finch I, 363 Ga. App. at 673-675 (4). While this case was pending on

appeal, the juvenile court issued a Final Disposition Order in the dependency action,

finding that, by stipulation of the parties, there was no present dependency of S. W.,

and closing the dependency case.

3 Other facts established at the temporary hearing are discussed below. The

transcript of the hearing was transmitted to this Court in Finch II. In our discretion,

we will consider the record in Case No. A23A0486 in connection with the instant

appeal.

3
custody of S. W. and granting Finch supervised visitation in accordance

with a parenting plan [“the August 2022 order”]. The trial court

declined to enter findings offact and conclusions of lawbecause its order

was temporary and therefore fell outside ofthe ambit of OCGA § 19-9-3.

368 Ga. App. at 47 (footnote omitted).

Finch appealed the August 2022 order. In Finch II, 368 Ga. App. at 49-50 (1)

(b), because the trial court failed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law

despite Finch’s counsel requesting them, we vacated the trial court’s judgment and

remanded the case “with direction that the court make sufficient findings and

conclusions to support its rulings on the contested child custody matter at issue in this

case.” Id. at 50 (1) (b) (citation and punctuation omitted). We did not reach the merits

of any other issue raised by Finch on appeal, including whether the trial court erred

in denying the Finch’s habeas corpus claim. See id. at 50 (2).

Following the case’s remand, without holding an additional hearing, the trial

court issued a “revised temporary order” (“the July 2023 order”). This order found

that “[b]etween 2015 and 2019, . . . there were four occasions when law enforcement

authorities were called to [Finch’s] home:” (A) two family violence incidents with a

man with whom Finch was in a relationship (the father of Finch’s other child),

4
including an incident where S. W. witnessed violence against Finch; (B) the incident

where Finch’s other child (S. W.’s half-sibling) was murdered; and (C) an incident

where S. W. was found walking alone down a “5 lane . . . heavily travelled” road. The

trial court also found that, at the time of the hearing, Finch was residing with her

mother, and there was testimony suggesting that “acts of family violence have

occurred” in the home, “perpetrated by someone who continues to reside in that

home,” though no one had been convicted of any crimes related to these incidents.

The court considered the factors set forth in OCGA § 19-9-3 and the unusual

procedural posture of the case, given that Finch had been largely kept away from S.

W. as a result of juvenile court orders that were later vacated. The court recognized

that, as a result ofthe procedural posture, Finch “had no face-to-face interaction with

the child for four years,” almost half the child’s life at that time, and the court found

that fact to be relevant towhat was in the child’s best interests, even though it was not

due to any wrongdoing by Finch. The court found that S. W. was “thriving while

under [Walden’s] primary care,”whilethechild had been subject towitnessing family

violence and had escaped the home while in Finch’s care. The court considered as

relevant that Finch had continued to live with the man who murdered her other child

5
while he was out on bond, and “continues to be in some sort of relationship with that

man even while he is in prison.”

4

The court found that several factors set forth in OCGA § 19-9-3 favored

Walden receiving custody of S. W.: (a) (3) (G) continuity in the child’s life and the

length of time in which she has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment with

Walden; (a) (3) (F) the home environment of each parent; (a) (3) (J) each parent’s

involvement in the child’s activities; and (a) (3) (M) each parent’s past performance

and relative abilities of future performance of parenting responsibilities. Thus, the

court found a material change in circumstancessince the last standing custody order,

and it was in S. W.’s best interest for her primary custodian to be her father, Walden.

The court then concluded that it was in the child’s best interest to have limited,

supervised visitation with her mother, such visitation expanding over time assuming

that it does not negatively impact the child. The court also issued a parenting plan

outlining the ordered visitation. This appeal followed.

4 The court noted that Finch testified at Sconyers’s jury trial that she believed

her child’s death was an accident, and that Finch and Sconyers did not co-habitate

with S. W. in the home after his arrest (because the juvenile court had removed S. W.

from Finch’s home).

6
1. On appeal, Finch first contends that the trial court erred in entering the July

2023 order, which further restricted Finch’s visitation with S. W. from the August

2022 order, without hearing any additional evidence. She asserts that the additional

restrictions are in violation of her right to due process and punitive because she chose

to appeal the August 2022 order. She argues that the trial court’s “vindictiveness”

should be presumed because “a more severe sentence” was imposed on her after

remand, and there were no affirmative reasons for the increased restrictions

mentioned in the July 2023 order.

Finch is correct that her visitation conditions were different in the August 2022

order and the July 2023 order. In the August 2022 order, Finch was granted

supervised visitation every other weekend, 12 p.m. to 6 p.m., on both Saturday and

Sunday. The visitation was to be supervised by any adult mutually agreeable to the

parties, or in the absence of agreement, Ms. Theresa Lamb. Finch was responsible for

the cost of the supervision In the July 2023 order, Finch was granted supervised

visitation every other weekend, 10 a.m. to 3 p.m., on both Saturday and Sunday. The

visitation was to be supervised by an adult mutually agreeable to the parties, or “a

person approved to act as a guardian ad litem in this Circuit who agrees to supervise

7
the visitation for an agreed-upon sum of compensation.”

5 Finch was responsible for

the cost of the supervision. No visitation could occur outside the general geographic

area unless mutually agreed between the parties in advance.

However, all of the cases relied upon by Finch in support of this argument are

criminal cases that involve successful challenges to convictions or sentences and a

more severe sentence after remand. Of course, parties are entitled to due process in

a child custody proceeding, but generally due process is satisfiedwhen a party is given

the right of notice and the opportunity to be heard.Coppedge v. Coppedge, 298 Ga. 494,

500 (4) (783 SE2d 94) (2016) (citation and punctuation omitted). Here, the order

being challenged was based on findings and conclusions stemming from a hearing at

which Finch was present, was represented by counsel, and gave evidence and

argument. The July 2023 order does not refer to any incidents or circumstances that

occurred after remand. Indeed, in the contested order, the trial court explained that

it referenced notes taken during the hearing and reviewed the transcript in preparing

5 Finch contends specifically (without citation to the record or evidence) that

disallowing Ms. Lamb from supervising the visitation (after Walden refused to agree

to her as a mutually agreeable supervisor), and requiring payment to a guardian ad

litem, has “been particularly taxing, and has effectively frustrated [her] ability to

maximize visitation periods.”

8
the July 2023 order. Further, “the requirements of due process are flexible and call

for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.” Id.(citation and

punctuation omitted). Finch has failed to point to any authority imposing upon a trial

court a due process obligation to conduct an additional hearing under these

circumstances. The difference between the visitation restrictions in the two orders is

minimal, and although it may have an outsized effect on Finch’s ability to maintain

visitation, we find no evidence that the restrictions were imposed to achieve such an

effect. To the extent any vindictiveness is to be presumed because the trial court did

not affirmatively acknowledge the alterations in the parenting plans, this presumption

appears only in reference to criminal defendants whose sentences are increased after

appeal, and even in that context, it is a limited principle of law. See State v. Hudson,

293 Ga. 656, 659-661 (748 SE2d 910) (2013) (examining the presumption of

vindictiveness established in North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U. S. 711 (89 SCt 2072, 23

LE2d 656) (1969), and limiting its application);Sponsler v. Sponsler, 353 Ga.App. 627,

631 (2) (838 SE2d 921) (2020) (examining the Pearce presumption in the context of

a criminal contempt proceeding). A child custody order is not a criminal sentence or

punishment for criminal contempt, and we decline to extend such principle here —

9
to a civil party whose visitation conditions were modified after remand from a

successful appeal.

2. Finch next contests several of the trial court’s factual findings, and its legal

authority to change custody of S. W. from her to Walden in the absence of a material

change in conditions and circumstances substantiallyaffecting the interest andwelfare

of the child. We find no error and affirm.

When reviewing an order in a child custody case, this Court views the evidence

in the light most favorable to the trial court’s decision. Strickland v. Strickland, 298

Ga. 630, 633 (1) (783 SE2d 606) (2016). This Court will notset aside the trial court’s

factual findings if there is any evidence to support them, and we defer to the trial

court’s credibility determinations. Saravia v. Mendoza, 303 Ga. App. 758, 758 (695

SE2d 47) (2010).We, however, reviewthe legal conclusions the trial court draws from

the facts de novo. Id.; Mashburn v. Mashburn, 353 Ga. App. 31, 32 (836 SE2d 131)

(2019). “A trial court’s decision regarding a change in custody/visitation will be

upheld on appeal unless it is shown that the court clearly abused its discretion. An

abuse of discretion occurs where a ruling is unsupported by any evidence ofrecord or

where that ruling misstates or misapplies the relevant law.” Donohoe v. Donohoe, 323

10
Ga. App. 473, 476 (1) (746 SE2d 185) (2013) (citations and punctuation omitted)

(physical precedent only).

(a) Finch contests four specific factual findings as stated in the trial court’s

order as not supported by evidence in the record of the parties’ custody case.6

However, as discussed below, the trial court’s ruling in this case was supported by

ample evidence. Even setting aside the factual findings contested by Finch, there

remains sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s conclusions in this case.

(b) Finch asserts that there was insufficient evidence supporting the trial

court’s judgment changing primary physical custody to Walden. She asserts that the

primary reason given for the change in circumstances warranting a modification of

custody — her lack of contact with the child over the previous four years — did not

6

Specifically, the factual findings refuted by Finch are:(1) that S.W.was found

walking alone down a 5-lane, busy, part of a roadway (Finch contends the evidence

showed only that the child was found on that particular road, with no evidence that

the portion of the roadwhere she was found was a 5-lane or busy portion of the road);

(2) that Finch continued to reside with Sconyers while he was out on bond awaiting

his trial for murder (Finch contends the evidence showed only that he occasionally

stayed over with her, but they did not live together during this time); (3) facts from

Sconyers’s trial that are not in the record of this custody case (the trial judge for the

custody case was the same trial judge who presided over the murder trial); and (4) that

the juvenile court took into accountFinch’sinvolvement with Sconyers when it issued

orders restricting her custody of S. W. (Finch contends that the superior court judge

cannot know the rationale behind the juvenile court judge’s orders).

11
support the judgment because it was through no fault of her own, and punished her

for complying with court orders that were later vacated. She also challenges the trial

court’s reliance on her personal relationships with Sconyers and others in its

determination as violating her “freedom of personal choice in matters of family life.”

For the reasons that follow, we disagree.

A trial court is authorized to modify a custody award upon a

showing of new and material changes in the conditions and

circumstances substantially affecting the interest andwelfareofthe child.

The proof must show both a change in conditions and an adverse effect

on the child or children.

Moses v. King, 281 Ga.App. 687, 690 (1) (637 SE2d 97) (2006) (citation, punctuation,

and emphasis omitted) (physical precedent only).If the trial court finds that there has

been a material change of conditions, it is authorized to modify custody if it is in the

best interest of the child. Bodne v. Bodne, 277 Ga. 445, 446 (588 SE2d 728) (2003).

Here, evidence presented at the hearing showed that several important events

had occurred since the last standing custody order (the 2014 legitimation order

granting primary custody to Finch). Specifically, S.W. hadwitnessed family violence

against Finch in Finch’s home; S. W.’s half-sibling was killed in Finch’s home while

12
under the care of Finch’s fiancé at-the-time, Sconyers; and there was an incident

where S. W. escaped from Finch’s home unsupervised, was found on the side of a

roadway, and had to be returned by the police.This evidence is sufficient to showboth

that there had been a material change in circumstances and an adverse effect on the

child. See Todd v. Casciano, 256 Ga. App. 631, 633-637 (1) (569 SE2d 566) (2002)

(evidence was sufficient to support change in custody where children were subject to

spending nights in a chaotic and unsafe home with mother’s romantic partner; trial

court allowed to drawreasonable inferences about adverse effect on children from the

evidence).Further, there was evidence that S.W. had thrived after being placed in the

custody of her father and that her behavior had improved since leaving Finch’s home.

See Lynch v. Horton, 302 Ga. App. 597, 601 (4) (692 SE2d 34) (2010) (changes in

circumstance which have a positive effect on child also sufficient to warrant change

in custody). Thus, the trial court’s findings are supported by evidence.

Further, evidence also supports the trial court’s findings that it was in S. W.’s

best interest to change custody to Walden. While the trial court observed that both

parents loved S. W., it named four statutory factors that led to its conclusion that it

was in S. W.’s best interest to grant primary custody to Walden. OCGA § 19-9-3 (a)

13
(3) (G), the importance of continuity in the child’s life, and (J), each parent’s

involvement, or lack thereof, in the child’s educational, social, and extracurricular

activities, weighed in Walden’s favor because S.W. had been living in Walden’s home

for four years, and had had limited face time with Finch during that time. Thus,

maintaining continuity would suggest she would benefit from remaining with her

father (and as a result of her living with Walden, he was the only parent that had been

involved in her schooling and extracurricular activities). Further, the court pointed

to OCGA § 19-9-3 (a) (3) (F), the home environment of each parent considering the

promotion of nurturance and safety of the child rather than superficial or material

factors, and (M), each parent’s past performance and relative abilities for future

performance of parenting responsibilities. These factors also weighed in Walden’s

favor because S. W. had been subject to witnessing family violence in Finch’s home,

and was allowed to escape from the home, while there was no such evidence of

difficulties under her father’s supervision. An analysis of the evidence shows that

there was ample support for the trial court’s decision to change custody to Walden.

See Milner v. Milner, 181 Ga. App. 760, 761-763 (1), (2) (353 SE2d 628) (1987)

(evidence supported change in custody where mother was romantically involvedwith

14
a man who had engaged in acts of family violence against a former partner and had

been accused of violence against children, and the child at issue was routinely

unsupervised by mother, including one incident where the child left the home andwas

almost struck by a vehicle) (physical precedent only).

We disagreewithFinch’s arguments that the trial court’s “primary reason”for

changing custody was her lack of interaction with the child for the last several years

(while Finch was respecting an order from the juvenile court that was later vacated)

and that the trial court was not permitted to take such fact into consideration. As

described above, the trial court noted several reasons for its decision, listing none as

a primary reason. To the contrary, most of the court’s factual findings concerned

Finch’s tumultuous history of living in homes where violence has occurred and her

continued relationship with the man who was convicted of killing her other child,

rather than focusing on any lack ofrelationship between S.W. andFinch. Further, the

court was careful to find that Finch was not at fault for any lack of interaction between

Finch and the child, and noted that fault was not necessarily relevant to its OCGA §

19-9-3 analysis. And, Finch provides no legal support for her argument that the trial

court may not consider facts for which a party is not at fault when determining the

15
best interests of the child. The statute includes no such assignment of blame, and the

trial court appears to have considered Finch’s lack of blame in its assessment. To the

contrary, as in all child custody cases, the “welfare of the child is the paramount issue

for consideration by the trial court[.]” Adams v. Adams, 219 Ga. 633, 635 (135 SE2d

428) (1964). In this case, the trial court correctly focused on how the procedural

posture of the case affected S. W.’s best interests, rather than basing its decision on

attempting to rectify any wrongs done to Finch via the vacated orders. Here, we do

not find that the trial court abused its discretion in this order.

3. Finally, Finch challenges the trial court’s denial of her counterclaim for

habeas corpus relief. She contends that, as soon as the juvenile court’s custody order

was vacated by this Court in 2022, custody of S. W.should have reverted back to her

based on the last valid custody order, the 2014 Order of Legitimation. Thus, Walden

was withholding custody of S. W. in violation of this order. She argues that, under the

habeas corpus action, custody of S.W. could be transferred only if Finch had“lost the

right to custody through one of the ways recognized in OCGA §§ 19-7-1 and 19-7-4,

or through unfitness.”

16
Under OCGA§ 9-14-1 (b), “[a]ny person alleging that another person in whom

for any cause he is interested is kept illegally from the custody of the applicant may

seek a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the legality of the restraint.” “When a

parent withholds a child from the other parent in violation of a valid child custody

order, the other parent may seek to secure the return of the child by filing a habeas

corpus petition in the judicial circuit where the child is allegedly being detained

illegally.” Bales v. Lowery, 299 Ga. 200, 202 (2) (787 SE2d 166) (2016).

Here, Finch is correct that, had the trial court conducted a hearing on the

habeas corpus claim first, it would have considered only whether Finch had a prima

facie right to custody of S. W. and whether Finch was unfit to parent the child or had

lost her right to custody via OCGA §§ 19-7-1 (b) (1) (generally voluntarily giving up

custody) or 19-7-4 (generally severe neglect). See Bales, 299 Ga. at 202 (2); Davis v.

Taylor, __ Ga. App. __, __ (2) (a) (898 SE2d 574) (2024) (explaining the difference

between the standards in a habeas-corpus action and change-in-custody action).

However, we find no support for the argument that a trial court cannot consider a

change in custody at the same time as a habeas corpus petition.Walden could not have

brought his change of custody complaint as a counterclaim to Finch’s habeas corpus

17
petition. Bales, 299 Ga. at 202 (2); OCGA § 19-9-23 (b) (1). But here, Walden’s

complaint for custody was brought first, so the questions of whether there had been

a material change in circumstances affecting the child since the time of the last valid

custody order and what was in the best interests of the child were properly before the

trial court, and its order denying Finch’s habeas corpus petition was not in error.

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order.

Judgment affirmed. Barnes, P. J., and Pipkin, J., concur.

18