That decision appears to be contrary to recent practice by both this Court and the Court of Appeals, albeit in cases in which the appellate court did not address in its opinion why no discretionary application was required. See McAlister v. Clifton, 313 Ga. 737 (873 S.E.2d 178) (2022); McDonald v. Reyes, 365 Ga.App. 317 (878 S.E.2d 79) (2022); Skinner v. Miles, 361 Ga.App. 764 (863 S.E.2d 578) (2021); Teasley v. Clark, 361 Ga.App. 721 (865 S.E.2d 556) (2021). But more importantly, we conclude that the Court of Appeals's decision to dismiss the appeal in Hartman was incorrect.

The equitable caregiver statute, OCGA § 19-7-3.1, falls under the "domestic relations" statutory scheme. See OCGA § 19-7-3.1; see also Teasley v. Clark, 361 Ga. App. 721, 724 (4), 865 S.E.2d 556 (2021) (the equitable caregiver statute is a domestic relations statute). Thereby, an appeal of an order in an equitable caregiver matter must be filed through an application for discretionary appeal.