From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McGinnis v. McGinnis

Supreme Court of Georgia
May 18, 1976
225 S.E.2d 904 (Ga. 1976)

Opinion

31044.

ARGUED MAY 10, 1976.

DECIDED MAY 18, 1976.

Habeas corpus; custody of children. Muscogee Superior Court. Before Judge Davis.

Edward W. Szczepanski, for appellant.

Kelly, Champion, Denney Pease, Ernest Kirk, II, for appellee.


Appellant and appellee were granted a divorce in 1968 in Dade County, Florida and the appellee-wife was awarded custody of the two minor children. On December 25, 1975, the appellant pursuant to his visitation rights carried the children to his home in Columbus, Georgia from Tallahassee, Florida. The children were not returned to appellee as promised on January 4, 1976, and the appellee brought this application for a writ of habeas corpus to regain custody of the children. Appellant filed an answer and cross claim alleging a change in conditions affecting the welfare of the children.

After a full and complete hearing the trial court made findings of fact and conclusions of law, holding that there had not been a substantial change of conditions which would justify the court in changing the custody of the two children from the appellee to the appellant.

This court has considered the record, the briefs and oral arguments submitted in this case and concludes that there was ample and reasonable evidence in the record to support the judgment of the habeas corpus court. Robinson v. Ashmore, 232 Ga. 498, 500 ( 207 S.E.2d 484) (1974); Githens v. Githens, 235 Ga. 657 ( 221 S.E.2d 428) (1975).

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur, except Ingram, J., who concurs in the judgment only.

ARGUED MAY 10, 1976 — DECIDED MAY 18, 1976.


Summaries of

McGinnis v. McGinnis

Supreme Court of Georgia
May 18, 1976
225 S.E.2d 904 (Ga. 1976)
Case details for

McGinnis v. McGinnis

Case Details

Full title:McGINNIS v. McGINNIS

Court:Supreme Court of Georgia

Date published: May 18, 1976

Citations

225 S.E.2d 904 (Ga. 1976)
225 S.E.2d 904

Citing Cases

Cundy v. Hendriksen

A review of the evidence reveals questions of fact for determination by the trial judge, and we find…