Birchby v. Carboy, 311 Ga. App. 538

Carboy filed a petition for a temporary family violence protective order against Birchby under OCGA § 19-13-1 et seq., seeking custody, exclusive residence, child support, and protection.
After a three-day hearing, the trial court issued a lengthy verbal ruling finding a family violence incident occurred and directed preparation of a written order; the court noted credibility concerns but found an act of family violence in kicking Carboy in the chest.
The written order, titled the Family Violence Twelve Month Protective Order, prohibited Birchby from contact with Carboy or her residence, awarded Carboy exclusive use of the residence, awarded temporary child support, and prohibited firearm possession.
Birchby moved to reopen the evidence, reconsider, and obtain a new trial; the trial court denied these motions and the disagreements were appealed.
The appellate court addressed mootness due to the 12-month order expiring, but retained jurisdiction over issues that affect a class of sufferers and tend to evade review, and affirmed the judgment.
The court also resolved questions about mandatory transmission of protective orders to the Georgia Protective Order Registry and held that transmission is required by statute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Judgment conforming to oral ruling	Birchby argues the written judgment failed to reflect the bench ruling.	Carboy asserts the written order implements the court's decision.	No reversible error; written judgment controls over oral.
Written findings of fact and conclusions of law	Birchby contends the order lacked specific findings of fact and conclusions of law.	Carboy contends OCGA § 19-13-4 does not require such findings.	No error; findings of fact/conclusions unnecessary in temporary protective orders.
Attorney draft of child support amount	Birchby claims Carboy's counsel drafted the order affecting child support inappropriately.	Carboy asserts the court directed counsel to prepare the order and review objections.	No reversible error; process authorized and supported by record.
Transmission to Georgia Protective Order Registry	Birchby argues the court had discretion to withhold transmission.	Carboy argues transmission is mandatory under statute.	Transmission required; clerk must transmit to Registry.
Consideration of pending divorce action	Birchby contends the court should have considered the pending divorce.	Carboy asserts the petition remains separate and mandate of the act applies.	Not reversible; issues arising from divorce do not undermine the order.

Blair v. Bishop, 290 Ga.App. 721, 660 S.E.2d 35 (2008) (finding burden of proof and admissibility considerations in appellate review)
Baca v. Baca, 256 Ga.App. 514, 568 S.E.2d 746 (2002) (mootness and appellate review standards)
Wilbanks v. Wilbanks, 238 Ga. 660, 234 S.E.2d 915 (1977) (considerations for findings of fact and conclusions of law in family cases)
North Fulton Community Hosp. v. State Health Planning, 168 Ga.App. 801, 310 S.E.2d 764 (1983) (standard for judicial review and evidentiary support)
McClure v. Davidson, 258 Ga. 706, 373 S.E.2d 617 (1988) (statutory interpretation and authoritative adoption of findings)
Ga. Pub. Svc. Comm. v. ALLTEL Ga. Communications Corp., 227 Ga.App. 382, 489 S.E.2d 350 (1997) (deference to clear legislative mandates in protective order context)
Barnett v. Fullard, 306 Ga.App. 148, 701 S.E.2d 608 (2010) (Court of Appeals practice considerations and preservation of error)
North Fulton Hosp. v. State Health Planning, 168 Ga.App. 801, 310 S.E.2d 764 (1983) (advisory on evidentiary standards and findings)