Court Opinion

ID: 9626516
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:15:19.318096+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:02.765158
License: Public Domain

MELTON, Justice,
dissenting.
Because I believe that, in accordance with the strong public policy underlying OCGA § 19-7-2, Grant Fred Page (Husband) is at least partially responsible to Jennifer Renae Baylard (Wife) for the cost of the medical components of their daughter’s residential treatment for drug and alcohol abuse, I must respectfully dissent from the opinion of the majority.
Many of the salient facts in this case are not in dispute. After the divorce of the parties, the parties’ daughter (Daughter) began abusing drugs and alcohol, and Wife was advised by a doctor that Daughter needed residential treatment for her mental and addiction problems. As a result of this advice, Wife individually chose to enroll Daughter at ABM Family Preparatory, a residential long-term treatment program where Daughter received both non-medical services such as those available at any private high school and medical services such as psychological counseling.
OCGA § 19-7-2 provides, in relevant part: “It is the joint and several duty of each parent to provide for the maintenance, protection, and education of his or her child until the child reaches the age of majority . . . , except to the extent that the duty of the parents is otherwise or further defined by court order.” In this case, Husband maintains that the parties’ settlement agreement removed all of his responsibility to pay for Daughter’s treatment at ABM. The settlement agreement, in relevant part, states that Husband
will pay one-half of all reasonable necessary medical and dental expenses incurred on behalf of the child, which are not covered by insurance. In the event that a major expenditure is to be incurred, [H]usband will be consulted prior to services rendered, except in an emergency situation.
In assessing the effect of this agreement, one must not lose sight of the public policy set forth in OCGA § 19-7-2.
The statute is expressive of the public policy that every child should have the right to receive at the hands of parents such health services as reasonably shall be required to maintain the child in good physical and mental health, and as reasonably shall be required to correct or ameliorate any dysfunction of mind or body.
Stone v. Tillis, 258 Ga. 17, 18 (365 SE2d 110) (1988). With this precept in mind, Husband should be relieved from his duty to contribute *589towards the cost of necessary medical treatment afforded to Daughter only if the settlement agreement approved by the trial court explicitly and unequivocally provides for such an outcome.
Decided February 5, 2007.
Nothing in the settlement agreement at issue here explicitly relieves Husband of his duty to pay for one-half of necessary medical treatment for Daughter, even in the event of a substantial non-emergency expenditure. The agreement contemplates that, in non-emergency situations, Husband should be allowed to participate in the choice of who should provide medical treatment to Daughter. Even if he is denied this choice, however, Husband has no power to prevent necessary treatment entirely, and, concomitantly, he has no right to be excused from his statutory duty to provide for the necessary treatment of his child. To the extent Husband has been harmed in this case, it is only in the removal of his contractual right to participate in the choice of a medical provider. If, perhaps, Husband can prove that he would have chosen a different treatment program and that program would have been less expensive than one chosen by Wife, his obligation may be reduced.
In this regard, Husband would not be responsible for non-medical services, but he would be responsible for half of the cost of medical services. Therefore, Husband may be able to prove that his obligation should be reduced if it is shown that the services provided to Daughter at ABM may be divided into non-medical services and medical services.
[T]o the extent that the expenses are for equipment or services which are of a medicinal or therapeutic nature and are prescribed by a physician, they are medical bills for which [Husband] is responsible. This includes therapy by a psychologist. To the extent that expenses are for ordinary necessities for which the custodial parent is responsible, these are not medical bills and are not the responsibility of [Husband].
Griffin v. Jefts, 256 Ga. 635, 636 (352 SE2d 386) (1987).
In any event, under the facts of this case, Husband’s obligation cannot be extinguished altogether, and the majority errs by reading the settlement agreement so expansively that it negates the important statutory public policy ramifications at play here. For all the reasons set forth above, I believe the trial court’s judgment must be reversed and the case remanded for further consideration.
*590Hait & Eichelzer, Alexander G. Halt, Philip K. Eichelzer, for appellant.
Moore, Ingram, Johnson & Steele, Stephen C. Steele, Elizabeth A. Guerrant, for appellee.