Court Opinion

ID: 9853537
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:49:58.562183+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:50.793415
License: Public Domain

Bell, Justice,
concurring specially.
I agree with the majority holding that children are entitled to be supported commensurate with their proven customary needs and the parent’s financial ability to provide for them, and therefore that a jury either must know the identity of the custodial parent before making an award of child support, or must be given the opportunity to make alternative awards. However, I cannot entirely concur in the additional holding that because this mother accepted the fruits before filing the motion for new trial, she is estopped from seeking to set aside the verdict.
It would be correct to impose estoppel insofar as it applies to the fruits which were due to the mother as spousal support or equitable division of property. See Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, 241 Ga. 303 (245 SE2d 278) (1978). But, we have held that the right of child support belongs to the child, and cannot be waived by the parent. Worthing-ton v. Worthington, 250 Ga. 730 (301 SE2d 44) (1983). I would therefore hold that the mother could not and did not waive her right to set aside the decree insofar as it awarded child support.
However, as the majority also holds, since the jury’s award of permanent child support was the same as the court’s award of temporary support, the jury’s lack of knowledge in this case did not affect the substantial rights of the child. I therefore concur in the affirmance of the judgment.
I am authorized to state that Justice Weltner joins in this special concurrence.
*291Decided November 27, 1985 —
Reconsideration denied December 19, 1985.
Westmoreland, Patterson & Moseley, Thomas H. Hinson II, for appellant.
E. Herman Warnock, for appellee.