Court Filings

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s grant of permanent custody of B.H. to the Montgomery County Department of Job and Family Services (MCCS). The child entered agency custody shortly after birth and, despite periods of compliance, Mother repeatedly relapsed into substance abuse, missed services, lost housing, and failed to maintain regular contact or visitation. The court found MCCS had custody for more than 12 of 22 consecutive months, made reasonable reunification efforts, and that permanent custody was in the child’s best interest given the need for a stable, legally secure placement with foster parents willing to adopt.

The Court of Appeal affirmed a postjudgment order in a divorce case that awarded the wife $12,500 in attorney’s fees (rather than about $49,000 she sought) after she prevailed on a dispute over the family home. The trial court reduced the requested fees based on the parties’ limited finances, overlitigation, and the reasonableness of the fees. The appellate court held the family law court did not err: when a marital settlement agreement contains a prevailing-party fee clause, the trial court may still consider Family Code factors (including ability to pay) in fixing the amount of fees, and it did not abuse its discretion here.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Tommy Martin’s direct appeal of a trial court order denying his motion to confirm service and reinstate a child support enforcement case because the court lacked jurisdiction. Georgia law requires appeals in domestic relations matters, including child support collection, to proceed by application for discretionary review. Martin used a direct appeal rather than the required discretionary-review procedure, and that failure is jurisdictional, so the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal without addressing the merits.

The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed a direct appeal by the mother of minor J. G. challenging a juvenile court order that terminated her parental rights. The court held it lacked jurisdiction because the mother failed to file the required application for discretionary review under Georgia law. The opinion cites the statute and precedent establishing that compliance with the discretionary-review procedure is jurisdictional, so dismissal — not a decision on the merits of the termination — was required.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s decision awarding legal custody and residence of minor S.B. to her mother. Father, appearing pro se, had sought shared parenting and custody but the trial court and guardian ad litem concluded the parents could not communicate effectively or set aside personal disputes for the child’s benefit. The appellate court found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining shared parenting was not feasible and in designating Mother as the residential parent after considering statutory best-interest factors and trial testimony.

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s decision denying the father’s motion to modify parental rights and granting in part the mother’s modification requests. The dispute involved a 2016 parenting agreement naming mother residential custodian and the child’s wishes to live with father and play football at a different high school. The trial court found no material change in circumstances to justify changing custody to father but modified certain logistical terms (travel notice, single phone, sharing activity costs) as in the child’s best interest. The court also properly handled the guardian ad litem (GAL) report and fee requests.

The Georgia Court of Appeals reviewed the record and determined that discretionary review was not appropriate in William Paul Bradley, Jr.’s case. The court concluded that granting the application for discretionary appeal was improvident and therefore dismissed the appeal. This order ends this Court of Appeals proceeding without addressing the merits of the underlying dispute.

The Georgia Court of Appeals reviewed the record in Anderson v. Anderson and determined the case was not suitable for discretionary review. The court concluded that granting the appeal was improvident and therefore dismissed the appeal. The order is a short procedural disposition without discussion of the underlying merits of the parties' dispute.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Jesse James Larson’s direct appeal from a trial court divorce decree because Georgia law requires appeals in divorce matters to be pursued by application for discretionary review. The court explained that compliance with the discretionary appeals procedure under OCGA § 5-6-35 is jurisdictional, cited prior decisions applying that rule, and concluded it lacked jurisdiction to decide the merits. The dismissal leaves the trial court decree in place unless the appellant pursues the correct discretionary-review procedure if timely available.