Court Opinion

ID: 9587046
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:17:39.167754+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:00.354997
License: Public Domain

MELTON, Justice,
concurring specially.
While I concur with the overall result of the majority opinion, I write separately to emphasize that Division 2 of the majority opinion should only be read to stand for the well-settled proposition that, absent evidence of harm to the best interests of the children through their exposure to certain individuals, a trial court abuses its discretion by prohibiting a parent from exercising their visitation rights while in the presence of such individuals (in this instance, Husband’s homosexual partners and friends). See Brandenburg v. Brandenburg, 274 Ga. 183 (1) (551 SE2d 721) (2001); Arnold v. Arnold, 275 Ga. 354 (566 SE2d 679) (2002). While Husband’s behaviors or actions affecting his children’s well being could support the trial court’s imposition of any number of restrictions on Husband’s visitation rights, the trial court abused its discretion by restricting Husband’s visitation rights based on his children’s potential exposure to Husband’s compatriots, independent of whether or not Husband’s friends exhibited any harmful behavior that could affect the children. Our case law is clear that such a visitation restriction must fail.
I am authorized to state that Justice Carley joins in this special concurrence.