Court Opinion

ID: 9963410
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-25 15:39:07.759576+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:48.316950
License: Public Domain

FIFTH DIVISION
                            MERCIER, C. J.,
                     MCFADDEN, P. J., and RICKMAN, J.

                    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

                                                                      April 25, 2024

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia
 A24A0323. HARTMAN v. DE CARO.

      MERCIER, Chief Judge.

      While they were in a romantic relationship, John De Caro and Nathan Hartman

had two children via a surrogate in 2012. Hartman was named as the sole parent of the

children. In 2015, Hartman and De Caro separated and, later that year, Hartman cut

off communication between the children and De Caro.

      In 2016, De Caro filed a petition to establish custody of the children, but as De

Caro had no statutory rights to custody, the trial court denied De Caro’s petition.1 On

July 1, 2019, the equitable caregiver statute, codified as OCGA § 19-7-3.1, became

effective, and De Caro filed a complaint for equitable caregiver status on the same day.

      1
      We affirmed the trial court in an unpublished opinion, pursuant to Court of
Appeals Rule 36. De Caro v. Hartman, A17A0550 (June 5, 2017) (unpublished).
Following a bench trial, the trial court issued a temporary order declaring De Caro as

an equitable caregiver for the children and ordering joint legal and physical custody

between De Caro and Hartman.2 Hartman filed this direct appeal, arguing, inter alia,

that the trial court erred by finding that De Caro had standing to file an equitable

caregiver petition, in its interpretation of the equitable caregiver statute, and by

awarding joint custody to De Caro. However, as discussed below, we lack jurisdiction

due to Hartman’s failure to file an application for discretionary appeal, and

accordingly we dismiss the appeal.

      Generally, appeals from orders in “domestic relations cases” must be pursued

through an application for discretionary appeal. OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2). The equitable

caregiver statute, OCGA § 19-7-3.1, falls under the “domestic relations” statutory

scheme. See OCGA § 19-7-3.1; see also Teasley v. Clark, 361 Ga. App. 721, 724 (4)

(865 SE2d 556) (2021) (the equitable caregiver statute is a domestic relations statute).

Thereby, an appeal of an order in an equitable caregiver matter must be filed through

an application for discretionary appeal. However, an appellant may file a direct appeal

      2
       If a trial court grants a petition for equitable caregiver status, it “may enter an
order as appropriate to establish parental rights and responsibilities for such
individual, including, but not limited to, custody or visitation.” OCGA § 19-7-3.1 (g).
                                            2
of “[a]ll judgments or orders in child custody cases awarding, refusing to change, or

modifying child custody or holding or declining to hold persons in contempt of such

child custody judgment or orders[.]” OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11).

      In order to determine whether the matter is entitled to a direct appeal, we look

to the issue raised on appeal, even when the order at issue also ruled on child custody

issues. Voyles v. Voyles, 301 Ga. 44, 47 (799 SE2d 160) (2017). As such, an order in a

domestic relations case, which contained a ruling regarding child custody, may not be

entitled to file a direct appeal if the issues raised on appeal challenge the domestic

relations ruling. See id.

      Hartman filed this action as a direct appeal of the trial court’s order. In order

to determine whether this Court has jurisdiction over the appeal, we look to the issues

Hartman raised on appeal. Voyles, 301 Ga. at 47. Hartman argues that the trial court

erred by determining that De Caro had standing to file an equitable caregiver petition

and that the trial court misinterpreted the equitable caregiver statute. While Hartman

also argues that the trial court erred by awarding joint custody to De Caro, he states

in his appellate reply brief that “[t]he interpretation of OCGA § 19-7-3.1 is the

controlling issue affecting the decision in this case.”

                                           3
      Further, we look to whether the “child custody issues are ancillary” to the

domestic relations action. Hoover v. Hoover, 295 Ga. 132, 134 (1) (757 SE2d 838)

(2014). If the child custody issues are ancillary to the domestic relations issue, “the

determination of child custody does not transform the case into a ‘child custody case,’

as that phrase is used in OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11), for purposes of determining the

appropriate method for appealing a child custody order.” Id.; see also Todd v. Todd,

287 Ga. 250, 251 (1) (703 SE2d 597) (2010). Here, the custody award was ancillary to

the granting of De Caro’s equitable caregiver determination. Simply put, the trial

court only ordered joint custody because it first determined that De Caro’s equitable

caregiver petition should be granted.

      As such, this is not a separate child custody order being appealed. See Todd, 287

Ga. at 252 (1). Instead, this is the appeal of an equitable caregiver order, which

includes an ancillary child custody determination. See id. (“[E]ven if the only relief

sought on appeal pertains to that custody decision, the underlying subject matter is

still” the equitable caregiver action.)

      Because this is not a child custody case, but is an equitable caregiver case in

which child custody is an issue, OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2) requires an application for

                                          4
discretionary appeal. See generally Todd, 287 Ga. at 252 (1); Ford v. Ford, 347 Ga.

App. 233 (818 SE2d 690) (2018) (dismissed appeal of divorce order that granted

mother sole custody of the children because the custody issues were ancillary to the

divorce, and an application for discretionary appeal was required); Numanovic v.

Jones, 321 Ga. App. 763, 764 (743 SE2d 450) (2013) (dismissed appeal of an order

denying a petition for legitimation and an order granting an adoption petition, because

the underlying subject matter of the appeal was the petition for legitimation, a

domestic relations action, and an application for discretionary appeal was required).

Because Hartman failed to file an application for discretionary appeal, we lack

jurisdiction and must dismiss this action.

      Appeal dismissed. McFadden, P. J., and Rickman, J., concur.

                                             5