Durham v. Gipson

7 Citing cases

  1. Park-Poaps v. Poaps

    351 Ga. App. 856 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 22 times
    Reversing trial court's award of pro rata costs for child's extracurricular activities because court failed to make required findings to support deviation from guidelines, and remanding for further proceedings

    The trial court is vested with discretion regarding visitation." Durham v. Gipson , 261 Ga. App. 602, 607 (2), 583 S.E.2d 254 (2003). In its 2019 Order, the trial court geographically restricted the mother's visitation with the children on the first and third weekends of every month to within Georgia.

  2. Morgan v. Fordham

    328 Ga. App. 227 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 3 times

    (Citations and footnotes omitted.) Durham v. Gipson, 261 Ga.App. 602, 605(1), 583 S.E.2d 254 (2003). Although Morgan complains on appeal that the trial court did not make any factual findings supporting the change in custody, unless requested by either party, the judge is not required to include factual findings in its order, and it does not appear that either Morgan or Fordham asked for such findings.

  3. Blue v. Hemmans

    327 Ga. App. 353 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 9 times

    Nevertheless, “[a]lthough trial courts have wide discretion in change of custody proceedings, that discretion is not without limits.” Durham v. Gipson, 261 Ga.App. 602, 605(1), 583 S.E.2d 254 (2003). Generally speaking, an abuse of discretion occurs where the trial court “misstates or misapplies the relevant law.”

  4. Simmons v. Williams

    660 S.E.2d 435 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 2 times
    Holding that overnight-guest provision was “clearly intended to preclude potential sexual relations by either of the parties with unwed partners in the presence of the children, a type of limitation within the discretion of the trial court”

    (Footnote omitted.) Durham v. Gipson, 261 Ga. App. 602, 607 (2) ( 583 SE2d 254) (2003). Here, the trial court abused its discretion because the visitation restriction is unduly burdensome.

  5. Jones v. Van Horn

    640 S.E.2d 712 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 5 times

    (Citations omitted.) Durham v. Gipson, 261 Ga. App. 602, 605 ( 583 SE2d 254) (2003). Generally, where there is no transcript of the proceedings or statutorily authorized substitute, we will presume that the evidence supported the trial court's ruling.

  6. Moses v. King

    281 Ga. App. 687 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 9 times

    Gordy v. Gordy, 246 Ga. App. 802, 803 (1) ( 542 SE2d 536) (2000). Thus, if the record contains any reasonable evidence to support the trial court's decision on a petition to modify custody, it will be affirmed on appeal. Durham v. Gipson, 261 Ga. App. 602, 605 (1) ( 583 SE2d 254) (2003). So viewed, the record demonstrates that Moses and King are parents of a 12-year-old daughter.

  7. Weickert v. Weickert

    268 Ga. App. 624 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 30 times
    Viewing the trial court's order as a whole, including its correct recitation of the law, a strong implication arose that the trial court considered the change of circumstances to have been material

    (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Gordy v. Gordy, 246 Ga. App. 802, 803 (1) ( 542 SE2d 536) (2000). If the record contains any reasonable evidence to support the trial court's decision on a petition to modify custody, it will be affirmed on appeal. Durham v. Gipson, 261 Ga. App. 602, 605 (1) ( 583 SE2d 254) (2003). Despite our grant of discretionary appeal only on the above three issues, appellant mother chose to enumerate eight errors in her appellate brief.