What did the Court of Appeals decide?

The court dismissed the two direct appeals because the appellants did not use the required discretionary-review procedure, so the court had no jurisdiction to hear the appeals.

Who is affected by this decision?

The father, Randy Harling, Jr., his former counsel, Bataski Bailey, and the mother, Laquinta N. Carter, are directly affected because the trial court’s fee allocation and contempt finding remain in effect for now.

Why were the appeals dismissed instead of decided on the merits?

Georgia law makes the discretionary-review procedure jurisdictional for domestic relations orders and certain fee awards, so failure to follow that procedure prevents the appellate court from reaching the merits.

Can this dismissal be appealed?

Because the dismissal is for lack of jurisdiction, the proper next step to obtain appellate review is to file an application for discretionary review as required by statute.

Randy Harling, Jr. v. Laquinta N. Carter

Docket A26A1485

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

FamilyDismissed

Filed: Apr 16, 2026 · 2 weeks ago
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Type: Opinion
Case type: Family
Disposition: Dismissed
Docket: A26A1485

Direct appeals from a trial court order awarding OCGA § 9-15-14 attorney fees and finding contempt in a domestic relations proceeding

Summary

The Court of Appeals dismissed two direct appeals challenging a trial court’s award of $5,005 in attorney fees and a contempt finding in a domestic relations case because the appellants did not follow the required discretionary-review procedure. The trial court had apportioned the fee award between the father (Randy Harling, Jr.) and his former counsel (Bataski Bailey). The Court of Appeals held it lacked jurisdiction because Georgia law requires an application for discretionary review to appeal orders in domestic relations matters and awards under OCGA § 9-15-14. Noncompliance with that procedure is jurisdictional, so the appeals were dismissed on April 16, 2026.

Issues Decided

Whether direct appeals may be taken from a domestic relations order holding a party in contempt and awarding OCGA § 9-15-14 attorney fees without first seeking discretionary review.
Whether failure to follow Georgia’s discretionary-review procedure deprives the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction to hear such appeals.

Court's Reasoning

Georgia law requires that appeals from domestic relations orders, including contempt findings, and appeals from awards under OCGA § 9-15-14 be initiated by application for discretionary review. The Court of Appeals cited statutory provisions and precedent holding that compliance with the discretionary appeals procedure is jurisdictional. Because the father and his former counsel filed direct appeals instead of applications for discretionary review, the court concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeals.

Authorities Cited

OCGA § 5-6-35
OCGA § 9-15-14
Russo v. Manning252 Ga. 155 (312 SE2d 319) (1984)
Capricorn Systems v. Godavarthy253 Ga. App. 840 (560 SE2d 730) (2002)
Smoak v. Dept. of Human Resources221 Ga. App. 257 (471 SE2d 60) (1996)

Parties

Appellant: Randy Harling, Jr.
Appellant: Bataski Bailey
Appellee: Laquinta N. Carter
Judge: Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Key Dates

Trial court order (contempt): 2025-03-01
Trial court fee award order: 2026-02-02
Court of Appeals dismissal: 2026-04-16

What You Should Do Next

1
File an application for discretionary review
If the appellants want appellate review, they should file an application for discretionary review under OCGA § 5-6-35, complying with the timing and form requirements.
2
Consult appellate counsel
Parties should consult an attorney experienced in Georgia appellate practice to ensure the discretionary-review application is properly prepared and timely filed.
3
Comply with trial court orders
Until appellate relief is obtained, the parties should comply with the trial court’s contempt and fee orders to avoid further sanctions.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the Court of Appeals decide?: The court dismissed the two direct appeals because the appellants did not use the required discretionary-review procedure, so the court had no jurisdiction to hear the appeals.
Who is affected by this decision?: The father, Randy Harling, Jr., his former counsel, Bataski Bailey, and the mother, Laquinta N. Carter, are directly affected because the trial court’s fee allocation and contempt finding remain in effect for now.
What happens next in the case?: The trial court’s orders remain in place; the appellants may seek review by filing an application for discretionary review in accordance with OCGA § 5-6-35 if they wish to pursue appellate relief.
Why were the appeals dismissed instead of decided on the merits?: Georgia law makes the discretionary-review procedure jurisdictional for domestic relations orders and certain fee awards, so failure to follow that procedure prevents the appellate court from reaching the merits.
Can this dismissal be appealed?: Because the dismissal is for lack of jurisdiction, the proper next step to obtain appellate review is to file an application for discretionary review as required by statute.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Court of Appeals
of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________
April 16, 2026

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A26A1448. BATASKI BAILEY v. LAQUINTA N. CARTER.
A26A1485. RANDY HARLING, JR. v. LAQUINTA N. CARTER.

In these domestic relations proceedings, the trial court entered an order in
March 2025, finding Randy Harling, Jr. (the “father”) in contempt. The court denied
the father’s motion for new trial, and, on February 2, 2026, issued an order awarding
the mother, Laquinta N. Carter, $5,005 in OCGA § 9-15-14(b) attorney fees. In the
February 2 order, the court found that the proceedings had been unnecessarily
expanded by actions and omissions of the father and his former counsel, Bataski
Bailey, ordering the father to pay $2,505 of the award, and Bailey to pay $2,500. The
father and Bailey then each filed a direct appeal of the award, docketed as Case Nos.
A26A1448 and A26A1485, respectively. We, however, lack jurisdiction.
Appeals from judgments or orders in domestic relations cases, including orders
holding persons in contempt of such orders, must be initiated by filing an application
for discretionary review. OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(2), (b); Russo v. Manning, 252 Ga. 155,
156 (312 SE2d 319) (1984). Additionally, appeals from orders awarding OCGA §
9-15-14 attorney fees also must be initiated by filing an application for discretionary
review. OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(10), (b); Capricorn Systems v. Godavarthy, 253 Ga. App.
840, 841–42 (560 SE2d 730) (2002). “Compliance with the discretionary appeals
procedure is jurisdictional.” Smoak v. Dep’t of Human Res., 221 Ga. App. 257, 257
(471 SE2d 60) (1996).
Here, the father and Bailey failed to comply with the required discretionary
appeals procedure. Thus, these appeals are hereby DISMISSED for lack of
jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________
04/16/2026
I certify that the above is a true extract from
the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Witness my signature and the seal of said court
hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.