In re Baby Girl Eason , 257 Ga. at 296 (1), 358 S.E.2d 459 (punctuation omitted); accord Lehr , 463 U.S. at 262 (I), 103 S.Ct. 2985 ; Turner v. Wright , 217 Ga. App. 368, 368 (1), 457 S.E.2d 575 (1995).Magdangal v. Hendrix , 313 Ga. App. 522, 525 (1), 722 S.E.2d 130 (2012) (emphasis supplied; punctuation omitted); accord Caldwell v. Meadows , 312 Ga. App. 70, 73 (1), 717 S.E.2d 668 (2011) ; see Morris , 309 Ga. App. at 389-90 (2), 710 S.E.2d 601 (noting that in determining whether a biological father abandoned his opportunity interest in a relationship with his child, the question was not whether he "could have done more," especially in comparison to financial support the father had provided to another sibling); Binns , 292 Ga. App. at 338, 665 S.E.2d 36 (pretermitting whether the father could have done more to pursue a relationship with his child, and holding that, regardless of what else the father could have done, the evidence did not support a finding that he had "done so little as to constitute abandonment"). First, the trial court failed to give any meaningful consideration to Brumbelow's decision to file a legitimation petition shortly after E. M.'s birth.
The cases on which the Court of Appeals relied for the proposition that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard are disapproved to the extent that they can be read as the Court of Appeals read them in its opinion. See Magdangal v. Hendrix , 313 Ga. App. 522, 525 (1), 722 S.E.2d 130 (2012) ; Caldwell v. Meadows , 312 Ga. App. 70, 73 (1), 717 S.E.2d 668 (2011) ; Morris , supra, 309 Ga. App. at 390 (2), 710 S.E.2d 601 ; Binns v. Fairnot , 292 Ga. App. 336, 338, 665 S.E.2d 36 (2008). Thus, rather than only reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, as the dissent suggests, we granted certiorari in this case to correct the Court of Appeals’ misunderstanding and misapplication of the applicable standard of review.
Giving due regard to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the sole witness, particularly given Chalk’s prior felony conviction for making false statements and his attempt to perpetrate a fraud upon the court in this case, the trial court was not required to believe his testimony, including his assertions that he had a close relationship with the children and had supported them financially. See Magdangal v. Hendrix , 313 Ga. App. 522, 722 S.E.2d 130 (2012). The guardian ad litem had called Chalk’s commanding officer to verify the military training orders and learned they had been falsified.