Narrative Opinion Summary
In the divorce case between Julie Morris and John Tanner, child support payments were contingent on the children living with Morris. After their children began living with Tanner, he ceased payments for the eldest and middle children. Morris filed for contempt when Tanner did not return the middle child after her request. The trial court found Tanner in contempt for arrears and awarded attorney fees to Morris. Tanner appealed, asserting the child support provision was self-executing. The Supreme Court of Georgia agreed, determining Tanner was not in contempt for the eldest child's support due to his reliance on the agreement with Morris's consent. However, Tanner's failure to return the middle child constituted contempt. The court vacated the $8,400 arrearage and attorney fees, remanding the case to recalculate arrears from the loss of consent until the child's return. The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. The court also held that self-executing custody changes are unlawful for minors under 14, securing Morris's primary custody rights, and dismissed Tanner's due process claim as moot.
Legal Issues Addressed
Attorney Fees in Contempt Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court's award of attorney fees to Morris was vacated, pending reconsideration in light of the adjustment of arrear amounts.
Reasoning: Additionally, the award for attorney fees is also vacated for reconsideration in line with this ruling.
Contempt of Court for Child Support Arrearssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Tanner was held in contempt for failing to pay arrears for the middle child after losing Morris's consent for the child living with him.
Reasoning: However, Tanner's failure to return the middle child to Morris, who held decision-making authority, constituted contempt.
Self-Executing Child Support Modificationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that the child support provision was self-executing, allowing Tanner to modify payments based on the children living with him, with Morris's consent.
Reasoning: The Supreme Court of Georgia acknowledged that self-executing child support modification provisions are lawful. It determined that the child support provision was self-executing due to the language regarding the children living with Morris.
Unlawfulness of Self-Executing Custody Change Provisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court noted that self-executing custody change provisions are unlawful for children under 14, confirming Morris's primary physical custody rights.
Reasoning: Notably, there is agreement that Morris has primary physical custody, and self-executing custody change provisions are deemed unlawful for children under 14.