.In theInterest of Baby Girl N. , 362 Ga. App. 253, 254 (1), 867 S.E.2d 853 (2022) (motion for permissive intervention); Baker v. Lankford , 306 Ga. App. 327, 328 (1), 702 S.E.2d 666 (2010) (motion to intervene as of right).In re Haney , 355 Ga. App. 658, 845 S.E.2d 380 (2020)
Cantrell became the legal father of this child by operation of law when he married the mother after the child was born and recognized her as his own. See Baker v. Lankford , 306 Ga. App. 327, 329 (1), 702 S.E.2d 666 (2010) (a man who was married to a child's biological mother at the time of birth was not required to obtain a court order to legitimate the child), citing Baker , supra, 276 Ga. at 779 (1), 582 S.E.2d 102. Having thus become the child's legal father, Cantrell "stands in the same position as any other parent and possesses the same custodial rights with respect to the child."
We review a trial court’s denial of both intervention of right and permissive intervention for an abuse of discretion. See Baker v. Lankford , 306 Ga. App. 327, 329 (1), 702 S.E.2d 666 (2010) ("We review a trial court’s decision under OCGA § 9-11-24(a) for an abuse of discretion."); Sloan v. Southern Floridabanc Federal Sav. & Loan Association , 197 Ga. App. 601, 603 (2), 398 S.E.2d 720 (1990) ("Whether permissive intervention is granted is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and a decision on this issue will not be reversed unless there is an abuse of discretion."). "Intervention after judgment is not usually permitted, and to justify it requires a strong showing.
See Davis , 274 Ga. at 7, 549 S.E.2d 76 ; see also La B rec v. Davis , 243 Ga.App. 307, 316 (2), 534 S.E.2d 84 (2000) (should the trial court conclude that it can properly address the biological father's legitimation petition, on remand, "we direct the court to determine the crucial issue of whether the delegitimation of the child's lifelong relationship with [the legal father] is in the best interest of the child, considering the emotional harm such decision would have upon the child in light of [the child's] established familial bonds and emotional ties with [the legal father]"). See generally, Baker v. Lankford , 306 Ga.App. 327, 329–331 (1), (2), 702 S.E.2d 666 (2010).Judgment vacated and case remanded .
(Emphasis supplied.) OCGA § 19–7–21.1(a)(2)(B); see also Baker v. Lankford, 306 Ga.App. 327, 329(1), 702 S.E.2d 666 (2010). In the judgment finalizing Smith and Fahey's divorce, which was entered eight months before Pearce filed this lawsuit, the Florida court ordered that, by stipulation of the parties, Fahey had “no parental rights or responsibilities” regarding T.C.F.