Lynch v. Horton

20 Citing cases

  1. Maxwell v. Johnson

    365 Ga. App. 547 (Ga. Ct. App. 2022)

    Cf.Lowry v. Winenger , 340 Ga. App. 382, 384-85 (1), 797 S.E.2d 230 (2017) (upholding trial court's finding of a material change in circumstances based upon evidence that "the child began to exhibit apathy for school after his move to Hall County" and "although the child continued to receive good grades and had demonstrated other signs of academic progress at his school in Hall County, his apathy regarding school was a negative impact resulting from the changes").Cf.Fox v. Korucu , 315 Ga. App. 851, 855, 729 S.E.2d 16 (2012) (affirming denial of motion for summary judgment when parent "submitted an affidavit stating that [the child's] grades had ‘begun to dramatically drop’ and that she was unhappy and stressed about attending her current school" because this was "some evidence of a material change in circumstances that adversely affected the child"); Lynch v. Horton , 302 Ga. App. 597, 602 (4), 692 S.E.2d 34 (2010) ("[W]hile continuously residing with [the father] for more than three years, [the child] demonstrated academic excellence, maintaining an ‘A’ average in school. The trial court could reasonably infer that [the child] was thriving in her father's care such that granting custody to [the father] promoted her best interest toward continued stability.").

  2. Fifadara v. Goyal

    318 Ga. App. 196 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 5 times

    Viskup v. Viskup, 291 Ga. 103, 105(2), 727 S.E.2d 97 (2012). See also Shotwell v. Filip, 314 Ga.App. 93, 96–97(1), 722 S.E.2d 906 (2012); Lynch v. Horton, 302 Ga.App. 597, 601(4), 692 S.E.2d 34 (2010). Here, the trial court also noted in its oral pronouncement at the close of the evidence that Fifadara had gotten a modification in Gwinnett County basically under false pretenses and that her credibility had been completely impeached.

  3. Smith v. Curtis

    316 Ga. App. 890 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 11 times
    Affirming trial court's judgment revoking a father's visitation rights when supported by evidence that the father's harassment of the child's mother resulted in obsessive-compulsive behavior by the child

    (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Lynch v. Horton, 302 Ga.App. 597, 600(4), 692 S.E.2d 34 (2010) ; OCGA § 19–9–3(b) ("[T]his subsection shall not limit or restrict the power of the judge to enter a judgment relating to the custody of a child in any new proceeding based upon a showing of a change in any material conditions or circumstances of a party or the child."). "Modification of child visitation rights is a matter of discretion with the trial court.

  4. Bankston v. Warbington

    No. A14A1514 (Ga. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2015)

    If there has been such a change, then the court should base its new custody decision on the best interest of the child." Lynch v. Horton, 302 Ga. App. 597, 600 (4) (692 SE2d 34) (2010) (punctuation and citation omitted); see also OCGA § 19-9-3 (b) (trial court may modify custody "based upon a showing of a change in any material conditions or circumstances of a party or the child"); Weickert v. Weickert, 268 Ga. App. 624, 627 (1) (602 SE2d 337) (2004) (trial court is not required to find a material change for the worse in order to modify custody). A determination that there has been a material change in condition supporting a modification of custody will be affirmed absent an abuse of discretion, and "[w]here there is any evidence to support the trial court's ruling, a reviewing court cannot say there was an abuse of discretion."

  5. Shotwell v. Filip

    314 Ga. App. 93 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that interference with non-custodial parent's visitation rights supported finding of material change in circumstances

    On appeal from a child custody decision, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court's order. Lynch v. Horton, 302 Ga.App. 597, 692 S.E.2d 34 (2010). So viewed, the record shows that the biological parents of J.F. married in August 1998 and resided in Georgia.

  6. Viskup v. Viskup

    291 Ga. 103 (Ga. 2012)   Cited 63 times
    Holding that remand for the trial court to clarify the statutory basis for the attorney-fee award was unnecessary when only one possible attorney-fee statute applied

    See OCGA § 19–9–3(b)....Lynch v. Horton, 302 Ga.App. 597(4), 692 S.E.2d 34 (2010). A trial court faced with a petition for modification of child custody is charged with exercising its discretion to determine what is in the child's best interest.

  7. Viskup v. Viskup

    S12A0276 (Ga. Apr. 24, 2012)

    See OCGA § 19-9-3(b)....Lynch v. Horton, 302 Ga. App. 597 (4) (692 SE2d 34) (2010). A trial court faced with a petition for modification of child custody is charged with exercising its discretion to determine what is in the child's best interest.

  8. Granados v. Newsome

    No. A24A1411 (Ga. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2024)

    On appeal from a child custody decision, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court's order. Lynch v. Horton, 302 Ga.App. 597, 597 (692 S.E.2d 34) (2010). So viewed, the evidence shows that Granados and Newsome have one minor child, a son, born in 2015.

  9. Finch v. Walden

    903 S.E.2d 802 (Ga. Ct. App. 2024)

    Further, there was evidence that S. W. had thrived after being placed in the custody of her father and that her behavior had improved since leaving Finch’s home. See Lynch v. Horton, 302 Ga. App. 597, 601 (4), 692 S.E.2d 34 (2010) (changes in circumstance which have a positive effect on child also sufficient to warrant change in custody). Thus, the trial court’s findings are supported by evidence.

  10. Harrison v. Whitaker

    862 S.E.2d 597 (Ga. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 6 times

    "Absent a contemporaneous objection, this enumeration of error presents nothing for appellate review." Lynch v. Horton , 302 Ga. App. 597, 599 (1), 692 S.E.2d 34 (2010) ; see also Rank v. Rank , 287 Ga. 147, 149 (2), 695 S.E.2d 13 (2010) (in the absence of an objection before the trial court, appellant could not complain on appeal about procedures used to present evidence at the hearing below). As such, we review the trial court's order as a final order, and not a temporary order.