SECOND DI VI SI ON M ERCI ER, C. J. , M ILLER, P. J. , and HODGES, J.

N O T IC E : M o tions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be phy s ic a lly 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 ecem ber 7, 2023



# In t he C ourt o f A ppe a ls o f G e o r g ia

A 23A 16 44. B A RRETT v

. B RYA N.

H O D G E S , J u d ge. Samantha B arrett a p p e a l s fr o m a t r i al c o u rt o rd er d enying her m o t io n to ap p o int

a gu ard ian ad litem in this d o mestic relatio ns c a se. Find ing no erro r, w e af f irm.
The relev ant f

ac ts sho w that in J anu ary 2022, W ilto n B ryan p etitio ned to
d iv orc e B arrett. Bryan so u gh t p rimary p hysic al c u sto d y of the co u p le’ s yo u ng d au ghter. A f

ter the trial c ou rt entered an interim o rd er aw ard ing j o int legal c u sto d y,
B a rrett mo v ed to hav e a gu ard ian ad litem ap p o inted

. B r yan o bj ec ted , and the trial

c o u rt d enie d t h e r e q u e st on the basis that it d id “ no t see any reaso n in t he M o tio n

w hic h w o u ld j ustif

y [B arrett’ s] requ est[. ]”Thereaf t er, the t rial c o u rt held a temp o rary c u sto d y hearing. A t t he beginning

o f the hearing, B arrett reiterated her requ est f o r a gu ard ian ad litem. The trial c o urt
resp o nd ed :
W ell, I am neither in f

av o r o f [the requ e s t] no r o p p o s ed to [the requ est], bu t I d o n’ t j u st c all in gu ard ian ad litems j u st [be]c a u se o ne p arty o r the

o ther w ant it. I f

irst d etermine if there’ s a need f o r [the gu ard ian] w hic h is what I w ill d o t h r o u g h t h i s hearing and then if I think I need [the gu ard ian]

. . . then I ’ll o rd er it, b u t I d on’ t
. . . let t he atto rneys d riv e the bu s o n a gu ard ian ad litem.

B oth parties testif

ied du ring the hearing regard ing their tro u b led marriage and mental
health issu es. A t the end o f the hearing, the trial c ou rt co nc lu d e d that bo t h B arrett and
B r y an had “ so me mental health issu es, ” b u t that B ryan’ s issu es w ere situ atio nal

w hereas B arrett’ s w ere c hro nic

. The c o u rt sp ec if ic ally c alled into qu estio n B arrett’ s j u d gment and d e c isio n- mak ing. The c o urt aw ard e d B ryan p rimary p hysic al c u sto d y and B arrett v isitatio n p end ing the f inal d ec ree. Barrett then renew ed her requ est f o r the ap po intment o f a gu ard ian ad litem, and the c o u rt resp o nd e d , “ I j u st d o n’ t see

w here this is a c ase w here these p arties, either o ne o f them, need t o sp end the mo ney

o n it. I j u st d o n’ t see, I d o n’ t see the need f or it. ”

2I n Febru ary 2023, the t rial c o u rt entered the f inal d iv o rc e d ec ree, w hic h

aw ard ed p rimary physic al c usto d y to B ryan. B arrett so u ght leav e to a p p eal the trial

c o u rt’ s gu ard ian ad litem ru ling, asserting that the trial c ou rt abu sed its d isc retio n in

r e f u sing to ap p o int a gu ard ian. W e granted B arrett’ s a p p lic atio n f o r d isc retio na r y
ap p eal, Ba r

r e t t v . Brya n , Case N o . A 23D 0 26 3 (granted Marc h 27 , 2023), and this

ap p eal f ollo w ed

.
1

. The ap p o intment o f a gu a rd ian a d litem in a d o m estic relatio ns c ase is

go v erned by Unif

o rm Su p erio r Co u rt Ru le 24. 9 (1 ), w hic h p ro v id es: The Gu ard ian ad Litem (“ GA L” ) is ap po int e d to assist in a d o m estic relatio ns c ase b y the su p erio r c o u rt j u d ge assigned to hear that p artic u lar

c ase, or o therw ise hav ing the resp o nsibility t o h ear su ch case. T he ap p o inting j u d ge has the d i s c r e tio n to ap p o int any p erso n a s a G A L so lo ng as the p erso n so selec ted has been trained as a GA L o r is otherw ise f amiliar w ith the ro le, du ties, and resp o nsibilities as d e termined by the j u d ge. The GA L may be selec ted thro u gh an intermed iary.

There ap p e ar to be n o c ases d isc u ssing the extent to w hic h a p arty is entitled to a
gu ard ian ad litem u nd er this r u le. H o w ev er, B arrett d o es no t assert in her ap p ellate
brief that the ru le requ i

res a trial c o u rt to ap p o int a gu ard ian a d litem. I nd eed , the main

c ase u p o n w hic h B arrett relies is Pa di lla v. Melen dez , 228 Ga. A p p . 46 0, 46 2- 46 3 (2)

3(49 1 SE2d 9 05) (1 99 7 ), w hic h sp e c if ic ally rec o gniz ed a t r ial c o u rt’ s d isc r etio n in

ap p o inting a gu ard ian ad litem in a d o mestic relatio ns c ase, and B arrett ac k no w led ges that “ this Co urt s h o u ld rev iew the trial c o u rt’ s ru ling o n an ‘ abu se o f d isc retio n’
stand ard .” That being said , bec au se this Co urt has no t ad d r e s s ed a t rial c o u rt’ s

o bligatio n u nd e r Unif

o rm Su p e rio r Co u rt Ru le 24. 9 a nd bec au se Pa di lla and ano ther

1 9 9 7 c ase ad d ressing a similar issu e 1 bo th relied o n OCGA § 2 9

- 4

- 7 , 2 w hic h w as
rep ealed in 2005, 3 w e tak e this o p p o rtu nity to re- emp hasiz e a trial c ou rt’ s d u ty w ith

resp ec t to ap p o inting a gu a rd ian ad litem in a d o mestic relatio ns c ase.
I t is w e ll settled that [w ] hen child c usto d y is an issu e b etw een p arents, the trial c o u rt has v e ry bro ad d isc retio n, lo o k ing alw ays t o the best interest o f the c hild

. W hen the trial c o u rt has exerc ised that d isc retio n, this c o urt w ill no t interf ere

1 D ee v . S weet

, 224 Ga. A p p . 285, 287

- 288 (1 ) ( 480 SE2d 31 6) (1 9 9 7 ) (c o nstru ing f o rmer OCGA § 29 -4- 7 to c o nc lu d e that trial c o u rt d id no t a b u s e i t s d i sc retio n in ref u sing to ap p oint a gu ard ian ad litem w here the ev id enc e f ailed to d emo nstrate that the p arent’ s interests w ere ad v erse to tho se o f her c hild ren).

2 OCGA § 29

- 4- 7 p ro v id ed that “ [w ]hen a mino r is interested in any litigatio n p end ing in any c o u rt in this state and he has no gu ard ian o r his interest is ad v erse to that o f his gu ard ian, su c h c o u rt ma y ap p o int a gu ard ian ad litem f o r the mino r. . . . ” (Emp hasis su p plied

. )

3 See Ga. L. 2004, p

. 1 61 , § 1

. 4u nless the ev id e nc e sho w s a c lear abu se o f disc r etio n, and w here there is

any ev id enc e to su p p o rt t he trial c o u rt’ s f ind ing, this c ou rt will no t f ind there w as an abu se o f d isc retio n. (Citatio n and p unc tu atio n o mitted

. ) T errell v . Terrell , 29 4 Ga. 208, 21 0 ( 7 51 SE2d 41 5) (201 3). W e c onc lu d e that this stand ard ap plies to a trial c ou rt’ s d e cisio n w hether to

ap p o int a gu ard ian ad litem f o r the c hild u nd er Unif

o rm Su p erio r Co u rt Ru l e 2 4

. 9

. N o tw ithstand ing the fac t that O C G A § 29

- 4- 7 was r ep ealed , w e reiterate that the

resp o nsibility of the trial c o u rt in d e termining w hether to ap p o int a gu ard ian ad litem
f o r the c hild is to c o nsid er the best interest o f t he c h i ld — inc lu d ing ind ic atio ns o f

p o t e n tial d anger to su c h c hild and w hether the interests o f the c hild are lik ely t o b e ad equ ately p ro tec ted by its natu ral gu ard ian. See Terrell , 29 4 Ga. at 21 0; Pa di lla , 228
Ga. A p p . at 46 3 (2). Onc e a trial c o urt ha s e x e r c i sed its d isc retio n to c o nsid er these
f ac to rs, t he c ou rt ma

y ap p o int a gu ard ian ad litem u nd e r Unif o r m Su p erio r Co u rt Ru le

24. 9, bu t the c o u r t is no t requ ired to d o so . The trial c o u rt is merely requ ired to

exerc ise its d isc retio n in d etermining w hether a g u a r d i a n ad litem sho u ld be

ap p o inted , and o u r r e v iew o f that d ec isio n is u nd er an a bu se o f disc r etio n stand ard

. See Terrell , 29 4 Ga. at 21 0; see also Pa di lla , 228 Ga. A p p . at 46 2- 46 3 (2) (no ting that
trial c ou rt f

ailed t o p ro p erly exerc ise its d isc retio n w hen it su mmarily d enied a requ est

5f

o r a gu ard ian ad litem w itho u t hearing ev id e nc e o r a r g u m e n t s). This co nc lu sio n is

c o nsistent w ith o u r f

o rmer law as w ell as c u rrent law a d d ressing t he ap po intment o f

a gu ard ian ad litem in d o mestic r elatio ns cases inv o l v i n g ad op tio ns. See OCGA § 1 9

- 8-

1 7 (c ) (“ I f at any time it ap p e ars to the c o u rt that the interests o f the c hild m ay c o nf lic t

w ith tho se of any p etitio ner, the c o u rt ma y, i n i ts di s creti on , ap p o int a gu ard ian ad litem

to rep resent the c hild and the c o s t t h e r eo f s h all be a c harge u po n the f u nd s o f the

c o u nty. ” ) (emp hasis su pp lied ).
Tu rning to the merits o f B arrett’ s c laims, we f ind t hat the trial c o u rt p ro p erly

exerc ised its d isc retio n in d e termining that a gu ard ian ad litem w as no t nec essary in the p resent ac tio n.
2. I n her f irst enu meratio n o f erro r , Barrett asserts that t h e tr i al c o u rt abu sed
its d isc retio n i n ref

u sing to ap p o int a gu ard ian a d litem “ in the f a c e o f rec ent,

u nc o ntro v erted e v id enc e o f [B r yan’ s] c o m p ro mised mental health w hic h c o u ld hav e

resu lted in serio us harm to the p arties’ then- f o u r - y ea r- old c hild .” H ow ev er, in the

argu ment sec tio n o f her ap p ellate brief regard ing th i s e n u meratio n, B a rrett nev er

m e n tio ns the ap p o intment o f a gu ard ian. I nstead , she ap p ears t o assert that t h e

ev id enc e w as insu f

f ic ient to su p p o rt the trial c o u r t’ s aw ard of p h ys i c al c usto d y to

6B r y an. B e c au se B arrett d id no t raise a su f f ic ienc y argu ment in her enu m er a t i o n o f

erro r or her ap plic atio n fo r d isc retio nary ap p e a l , t h is enu meratio n p resents no thing
f o r o u r r ev iew

. See C

o us i n v . Tu b b s , 358 Ga. Ap p . 722, 7 26 (2) (856 SE2d 56 ) (2021 ) (“ [ E]nu meratio ns may no t be enlarged b y b rief o n ap p eal t o c o v e r i s s u es no t

c o ntained in the o riginal enu meratio n. ” ) (c itatio n and p u nc tu atio n o mitted ); see also
Zeks er v . Zeks er , 29 3 Ga. 36 6 , 36 9 (2) (7 44 SE2d 6 9 8) (201 3) ( “The issu e s on ap p eal

are limited by the erro rs e nu merated in the ap p lic atio n f o r disc r et io nary a p p eal. ” ) (c itatio n and p u nc tu atio n o mitted ).
To the extent that B a rrett’ s argu ment may be genero u sly c o nstru ed as asserting
that a gu ard ian ad litem ap p o intment w as requ ired giv en the f a c tu al circ u mstanc es in
this c ase, w e f

ind no merit in this argu m ent. H ere, the trial co u rt stated that it w o u ld
d etermine t he ne e d f

o r a gu ard ian ad litem ap p o intment af t er hearing the ev id enc e d u ring t he temp o rary hearing. Onc e bo th p arties testif ied regard ing t heir tr o u b l e d marriage and mental health issu es, the c o u rt exerc ised its d isc retio n and d etermined
that a gu a r d i a n ad l i t em w as no t need ed

. B arrett has no t met her bu rd en o f
d emo nstrating erro r thro u gh her brief , generaliz ed statements that the trial c o urt
abu sed its d isc retio n in so f ind ing. See To lb ert v. To o le , 29 6 Ga. 357 , 36 3 (3) (7 6 7 SE2d

724) (201 4) (“ I t is [ the a p p ellant]’ s bu rd en, a s the p a r ty c hallenging the r u ling belo w ,

to af f irmativ ely sho w erro r f

ro m the rec o rd o n ap p e al. ” ); Terrell , 29 4 Ga. at 21 0.

3. I n related enu m eratio ns o f erro r, bo th o f w hic h rely o n Pa di lla , B arrett argu es

t h a t t he trial c o u r t e rred in ref u sing to ap po int a gu ard ian ad litem based o n t h e

mo netary c o s t to the p arties and its d ec laratio n that the co u rt w as “ the s o le au tho r ity

o n c hild c u s t o d y . ” Wh ile the trial c o u rt d id mentio n, f o llo w ing the t e m p o r ary hearing,
that it d id no t see the need f o r either p arty to “ sp end the mo ney o n ” a g u ard ian ad
litem and that the c ou rt wo u ld b e “ m a k ing the c u sto d y ev a lu atio ns and

. . . no t
p aw ning t hat of

f o n a ny gu ard ian ad litem,” w e do no t read the trial c o u rt’ s statements

as inap p ro p riate or as the c o urt’ s s o l e reaso ns f o r ref u sing B arrett’ s requ est f o r a
gu ard ian ad litem.
First o f a ll, the rec ord d o es no t s u p p o r t Barrett’ s statement in her ap p ellate
brief that “ [t]he o nly reaso n p ro v id ed by the trial c o u rt f o r its three sep arate d enials

o f [her] three sep arate requ ests w as the financ ial c o sts to t he parties. ” To t h e

c o ntrary, the trial c o u rt’ s initial o rd er d enying B arrett’ s requ est f o r a gu ard ian ad
litem no ted o nly that B arrett failed to inc lu d e any reaso ns in her mo tio n j u stif ying the

requ est. The o rd er d id no t mentio n any f inanc ial c o s ts to the p arties. Thereaf t er, p rio r

8to the temp o r a ry hearing, B arrett renew ed her mo tio n, a nd the trial j u dge o p enly

stated that he w o u ld d etermine af ter the hearing if he b eliev e d a gu ard ian ad litem w as

nec essary. A gain, the trial c o u rt nev er mentio ned a n y f i n an c i al c o sts to the p arties. Then, f o llo w ing the hearing, the trial j u d ge stated that he did no t “ see the need ” f o r

a gu ard ian: “ I j u st d o n ’ t s e e w h ere this is a c ase w here these p arties, either o ne o f them, need to sp end the mo ney o n it. I j ust do n’ t see, I d o n’ t see the need f o r it. ”
W hile the trial c o u rt mentio ned f inanc ial co sts to the p arties at this p o int, there is no ind ic atio n in the rec o rd that c o st w as the c o u rt’ s so le d riv ing f orc e, as o p p o sed to o ne f ac to r, behind its ref

u sal to ap p o int a gu ard ian.
Sec o nd , B arrett also misc o nstru es the tria l co u rt’ s s tatement regard ing c u sto d y

ev alu atio ns. B a rrett states in her ap p ellate b rief that t he trial c o u rt “ d ec lar[ed ] itself
the s o le au tho rity o n child c u sto d y a nd , a p p arently, the mental health o f the parties. ”
The transc rip t d o es no t su p p o rt Barrett’ s s tatement. Fo l l o w i n g the temp o rary hearing, B a rr e t t ’ s co u nsel ask ed a bo ut a c usto dy ev alu atio n with Dr. Tillitsk i in
M ac o n, to w hic h the trial ju d ge resp o nd ed : “ I hav e a lo t o f r esp ec t f o r D r. Tillitsk i,
bu t t his Co u r t is mak ing t he c u sto d y ev a lu atio ns and I’ m no t p aw ning that of f o n any
gu ard ian ad litem, any p syc hiatrist, a nybo d y else[. ]” The trial j u d ge d id no t ind ic a t e

9that he w o u ld “ f u lf ill the ro le of a gu ard ian ad litem,” as argu e d by B arrett. Rather,
the trial c o u rt w as simp ly remind ing the p arties that it is t he c o u rt’ s d u ty to m ak e the

u ltimate c u sto dy d eterminatio n in the c ase. S e e W ea v er v . Wea v er , 238 G a. 1 01 , 1 03 (2) (230 SE2d 886 ) ( 1 9 7 6) (c o nc lu d ing that it is the du ty o f th e c o u r t t o mak e a

c u s to d y d eterminatio n in the best interests o f the c hild r en), su p erc ed ed by statu te o n

o ther gro und s , D a vi

ds o n v . D a v ids o n , 243 Ga. 84 8 , 8 4 9 ( 1) ( 2 57 SE2d 26 9) (1 9 7 9 ); Pa te

v . S a dlo ck , 345 Ga. A p p . 5 9 1 , 5 9 7 (3) (81 4 SE2d 7 6 0) (201 8) (ho l d i n g t h a t a c o urt

c anno t d elegate d ec isio ns regard ing c u sto d y o r v isitatio n to an exp ert).
B a rrett has no t met her bu rd en of d emo nstrating that the t r ial c o u rt abu sed its
d isc r etio n in ref

u sing to ap p oint a gu a rd ian ad litem o n these gro u nd s. See To l b ert , 29 6
Ga. at 36 3 (3); Terrell , 29 4 Ga. at 21 0. H ere, unlik e in Pa d i lla , the trial c o u rt exerc ised
d isc r etio n in d enying B arrett’ s requ e st f o r a gu a rd ian ad litem. 228 G a. A p p . at 46 2-
46 3 (2). The trial co u rt said it w o u ld d ec id e w hether a g u ar d ian w a s need ed af ter hearing ev id e nc e at the c u sto d y hearing, and , af ter hearing that ev id e n c e , t h e c o urt
d etermined a gu ard ian a d litem w as no t need e d

. U nd er t hese c irc umstanc es, it c anno t
be said that the trial c o urt abu sed its d isc retio n. See, e. g. , E a gle Jets , LLC v . Atla n ta Jet, In c. , 347 G a. A p p . 56 7 , 5 7 6 (2) (c ) ( 82 0 S E 2 d 1 9 7 ) (201 8) ( “A n abu se o f

10d isc r etio n o c c urs w here a ru ling is u nsu p p o rted by any ev id enc e of rec o rd o r w here

that ru ling misstates o r misap p l i e s the relev ant law

. ” ) (c itatio n and p u nc tu atio n

o mitted )

. The ru ling o f

the trial c o u rt is af

f irmed

. 4
Ju dgmen t a

ffi rmed. Merci

er, C. J. , a n d Mi

ller, P. J. , co n cu r .

4 B ryan’ s mo tio n f

o r atto rney’ s fees and exp ens e s o f litigatio n f o r a f riv o lo u s ap p eal, ho w ev e r, is d enied

. 11