BAARS v. Freeman
288 Ga. 835
| Ga. | 2011Background
- Divorced in 2001; final decree incorporates 2001 settlement; custody awarded to Baars; Freeman pays $146.25 weekly child support.
- Settlement governs Freeman's visitation and various obligations; contempt filings by Baars in 2003–2004 for nonpayment and noncompliance.
- Freeman moved to England in 2004; family resided in Holland 2004–2008; child visited Freeman 2–4 months yearly.
- Baars sought UIFSA enforcement in the UK in 2009; Freeman filed a contempt/relief motion in Georgia in 2009–2010; testimony by telephone from England.
- Trial court found Baars in contempt for restricting visitation; did not find Freeman in contempt for some obligations; order modified several terms, then this appeal ensued.
- This Court reverses in part and remands for proceedings consistent with the opinion; retains obligation on Freeman to provide health care insurance for the child.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court impermissibly modify the decree? | Baars argues the court shifted uninsured medical expenses to a shared-cost scheme. | Freeman argues the court properly interpreted the decree. | Yes; court impermissibly modified the decree. |
| Jurisdiction to adjudicate arrearages under UIFSA continuing exclusive jurisdiction? | Baars contends Georgia can decide arrearages despite UK proceedings. | Freeman contends UK action affects enforcement but Georgia retains authority. | Georgia trial court has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction and could adjudicate arrearages. |
| Whether court properly addressed Freeman’s health-insurance obligation and related medical costs? | Baars seeks contempt for failure to provide insurance per settlement. | Freeman argues compliance or lack of modification; policy was named and controlled. | Remand needed; trial court cannot modify health-insurance obligation via contempt. |
| Whether Baars’ contempt findings against her for limiting communication were proper? | Baars argues no abuse of discretion in contempt finding. | Freeman contends communication restrictions violated visitation rights. | Trial court’s contempt finding against Baars upheld, on remand to address remaining issues. |
| Should the trial court award attorney fees to Baars? | Baars seeks attorney fees under OCGA § 19-6-2. | Freeman opposes or reserves ruling. | Remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dohn v. Dohn, 276 Ga. 826 (2003) (court cannot modify terms in a contempt proceeding; only interpret/clarify decree)
- Pineres v. George, 284 Ga. 483 (2008) (trial court improperly modified decree by altering child-health decision-making)
- Perry v. Perry, 265 Ga. 186 (1995) (court improperly modified decree by shifting uninsured medical expenses)
- Smith v. Smith, 281 Ga. 204 (2006) (court cannot modify health-insurance obligation in contempt context)
- Dyer v. Surratt, 266 Ga. 220 (1996) (court has inherent power to enforce orders through contempt)