Amoakuh v. Issaka, 299 Ga. 132

Father (Eddie Amoakuh) and Mother (Mariama Issaka) divorced in 2010; by 2012 two children lived with Mother in the U.K.; Father had summer visitation and visitation when in Mother’s residence; child support was $150/month.
By 2014 Mother resided in Ghana; one child remained a minor. Father kept the child after 2014 summer visitation, enrolled her in Georgia school, and traveled with her from Ghana to the U.S.
Mother petitioned for contempt, sole custody, and increased child support; Father counterclaimed for contempt and requested primary custody.
Trial court found Father in contempt (willfully keeping the child and failing to timely pay child support), awarded Mother sole legal and physical custody, limited Father’s passport access, kept visitation equivalently but tied to child’s residence, and increased child support to $381/month; awarded Mother attorney’s fees for contempt.
Father appealed, challenging the custody modification, contempt findings (both against him and the court’s refusal to find Mother in contempt), and the attorney-fee award.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Father)	Defendant's Argument (Mother)	Held
Whether custody modification was proper	Trial court abused discretion; no material change warranting change	Father’s conduct (retaining child, blocking communication, enrolling without consent) was a material change and custody change served child’s best interests	Modification affirmed — court had evidence of material change and acted within discretion (best interest standard)
Whether Father was in contempt of 2012 order	Failures (support, retaining child) were not willful; lacked opportunity to pay earlier	Father had funds earlier, delays were willful; he kept child beyond visitation	Contempt findings against Father affirmed (willful nonpayment and willful retention)
Whether Mother should have been held in contempt	Father: Mother failed to provide child’s passport and other compliance	Mother testified she acted to renew passport; trial court credited her	Trial court did not abuse discretion in declining to hold Mother in contempt; affirmed
Whether attorney's fees award for contempt was proper	Award invalid: trial court failed to consider parties’ relative financial circumstances under OCGA § 19-6-2	Trial court awarded fees under OCGA § 19-6-2 but did not make required findings on finances	Fee award vacated and remanded for reconsideration with findings on financial circumstances; other challenges under OCGA § 9-15-14 rejected

Viskup v. Viskup, 291 Ga. 103 (2012) (standard for custody modification: material change and best interests)
Baker v. Schrimsher, 291 Ga. 489 (2012) (trial court has broad discretion in contempt determinations)
Hammond v. Hammond, 282 Ga. 456 (2007) (appellate deference to trial court credibility findings in contempt matters)
McCarthy v. Ashment-McCarthey, 295 Ga. 231 (2014) (requirements for attorney’s-fee awards under OCGA § 19-6-2 include consideration of parties’ finances)
Leggette v. Leggette, 284 Ga. 432 (2008) (same — trial court must show consideration of financial circumstances when awarding fees)
Simmons v. Simmons, 288 Ga. 670 (2011) (procedural considerations for awarding fees in family-law contempt proceedings)
Taylor v. Taylor, 282 Ga. 113 (2007) (modification/visitation principles; custody changes do not necessarily terminate parental rights)