Court Opinion

ID: 9745146
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:37:48.193564+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:56.786008
License: Public Domain

GARRARD, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in part I but find that I must dissent as to part II.
*509In its treatment of the support issue the majority converts what the trial court had discretion to do into a mandate. I believe it does so incorrectly.
Its mandate is complicated by the fact that without citation to any authority it concludes that a letter written by the mother, at a time when she was apparently being represented by competent counsel in this matter, should be taken as a formal petition to modify. It thus again removes from the trial judge the discretion to determine otherwise. As for the majority's concern that the court gave no reason for finding September 29 to be a significant date, it appears to me sufficient that September 29 was the day the modification decree was entered.
I would affirm the trial court.