(Citations omitted.) Matthews v. Dukes , 314 Ga. App. 782, 786 (1), 726 S.E.2d 95 (2012), overruled on other grounds by Brine v. Shipp , 291 Ga. 376, 380 (3), 729 S.E.2d 393 2012. "On appeal of an order denying a petition to legitimate ..., the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the [trial] court's ruling." (Citation and punctuation omitted.)
First, Jefferson argues that O'Neal was barred from asserting a legitimation claim for K. J. because she already had a legal father and K. J.’s surreptitious conception was concealed from Jefferson. Jefferson's reliance on Matthews v. Dukes , 314 Ga. App. 782, 785-786 (1), 726 S.E.2d 95 (2012), overruled in part by Brine , Ga. at 380 (3), 729 S.E.2d 393, for this argument is unavailing. Matthews held that
Binns v. Fairnot, 292 Ga.App. at 337, 665 S.E.2d 36. We review the court's factual findings, however, for clear error and will only sustain such findings if there is competent evidence to support them. Matthews v. Dukes, 314 Ga.App. 782, 786(1), 726 S.E.2d 95 (2012), overruled on other grounds, Brine v. Shipp, 291 Ga. 376, 380(3), 729 S.E.2d 393 (2012). In this case, the record shows the following undisputed, relevant facts on the issue of whether Brannon abandoned his opportunity interest.
Binns v. Fairnot, 292 Ga. App. at 337. We review the court's factual findings, however, for clear error and will only sustain such findings if there is competent evidence to support them.Matthews v. Dukes, 314 Ga. App. 782, 786 (1) (726 SE2d 95) (2012), overruled on other grounds, Brine v. Shipp, 291 Ga. 376, 380 (3) (729 SE2d 393) (2012). In this case, the record shows the following undisputed, relevant facts on the issue of whether Brannon abandoned his opportunity interest.
On cross-examination, Wilbourn agreed that he had been sober since February of 2010, but made no effort to establish a relationship with the child until May of 2012. See Neill, 320 Ga.App. at 824–825(1), 738 S.E.2d 724 (the evidence established that the biological father abandoned his opportunity interest to form a relationship with his daughter when he waited more than four years after learning that the child was his biological daughter before deciding he would like to have a parent-child relationship); Matthews v. Dukes, 314 Ga.App. 782, 786(1), 726 S.E.2d 95 (2012) (where child was conceived in an extramarital affair between the biological father and the child's mother, and the biological father waited five years before filing a legitimation petition, the evidence supported the trial court's conclusion that the biological father had abandoned his opportunity interest), overruled on other grounds, Brine v. Shipp, 291 Ga. 376, 380(3), 729 S.E.2d 393 (2012); In the Interest of J.S., 302 Ga.App. 342, 344(1), 691 S.E.2d 250 (2010) (where the biological father had lived with and supported his child and the child's mother for the first year after the child was born, but had no significant contact with the child and failed to pay child support for the next four years while he was incarcerated, the evidence supported the juvenile court's finding that the biological father had abandoned his opportunity interest); Smith, 254 Ga.App. at 173–174(2), 561 S.E.2d 850 (affirming finding that the biological father had abandoned his opport
See Amerson v. Vandiver, 285 Ga. at 50, 673 S.E.2d 850; see also Alexander v. Guthrie, 216 Ga.App. at 462, 454 S.E.2d 805 (mother's right to object to petition to legitimate in superior court did not include a right to seek a termination of biological father's rights in legitimation proceeding). We overrule division 2 in Ghrist v. Fricks and division 2 in Matthews v. Dukes, 314 Ga.App. 782, 726 S.E.2d 95 (2012), to the extent they determined that the superior court had jurisdiction to sever parental rights because the termination issue was ancillary to the biological father's petition to legitimate. Judgment reversed.
en the father waited 11 years before taking steps to legitimate or support his child and when he only did so after the child's stepfather sought to adopt the child); Wilbourn , 327 Ga. App. at 386-87, 759 S.E.2d 262 (noting that an unwed biological father's opportunity interest in developing a relationship with his child can be abandoned if not timely pursued and affirming the denial of a legitimation petition because, inter alia , it was filed four years after the child was born); Neill , 320 Ga. App. at 825 (1), 738 S.E.2d 724 (holding that the biological father abandoned his opportunity interest in a parent-child relationship, and explaining that "even though [he] did not learn that he was definitely the child's father until the child was one year old, he was aware of the possibility that he could be the biological father before the child was born and, to remove any doubts, he could have filed a legitimation petition right after her birth and sought court-ordered genetic testing"); Matthews v. Dukes , 314 Ga. App. 782, 786, 726 S.E.2d 95 (2012) (holding that the biological father abandoned any opportunity interest he may have had in raising his child when, although the father had occasional visits and provided some cash and small gifts, he waited five years to file a legitimation petition), overruled on other grounds by Brine v. Shipp , 291 Ga. 376, 729 S.E.2d 393 (2012) ; In the Interest of J. M ., 289 Ga. App. at 444 (1) (b), 657 S.E.2d 337 (noting that a two-year delay in filing a legitimation petition after the child was born was one of several factors that supported the trial court's conclusion that the father abandoned his opportunity interest); In the Interest of L. S. T ., 286 Ga. App. 638, 639 (1), 649 S.E.2d 841 (2007) (affirming the trial court's conclusion that a biological father abandoned his opportunity interest when, inter alia , he waited two years after the child was born to file his petition, during which time she was in foster care and his only contact with her was a single phone call); Bowers , 271 Ga. A