Brawner v. Miller
334 Ga. App. 214
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Mother (Camease Miller) and father (Akintunde Brawner) had two sons; parents separated in 2006 and children lived mainly with the maternal grandfather, Oscar Miller.
- Father lived nearby but had sporadic contact, attended few events, and inconsistently paid child support (held in contempt in 2011 for arrears).
- Mother was murdered in July 2013; two weeks later father filed to legitimate the children and seek custody; maternal grandfather intervened and sought custody as well.
- After an evidentiary hearing the trial court granted legitimation but awarded custody to the grandfather and granted permissive visitation to the father; father’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
- Trial court found the boys had strong emotional bonds with grandfather and aunt, were still grieving their mother, and that uprooting them to live with a father with a limited relationship would cause significant, long-term emotional harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Brawner) | Defendant's Argument (Miller) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicable legal standard for awarding custody to a third-party relative | Trial court erred by not finding parent unfit before awarding custody | OCGA § 19-7-1(b.1) allows third-party custody if it’s in best interest; no explicit unfitness finding required if harm standard met | Court: No error — statute and precedent require clear-and-convincing showing of harm, not an explicit unfitness finding |
| Burden to overcome parental presumption | Father: Presumption in favor of parent cannot be overcome without unfitness finding | Grandfather: Presumption may be rebutted by clear-and-convincing proof that parental custody would cause physical or significant, long-term emotional harm | Court: Presumption can be rebutted by clear-and-convincing evidence of physical or significant, long-term emotional harm |
| Whether father’s conduct/evidence met “harm” standard | Father: Contends no clear-and-convincing evidence that custody with him would cause significant, long-term emotional harm | Grandfather: Children’s established bonds, father’s long absence, prior contempt for support, and recent trauma support harm finding | Court: Evidence was clear-and-convincing that awarding custody to father would cause significant, long-term emotional harm |
| Whether custody to grandfather best promotes children’s welfare | Father: Best interests favor parental custody | Grandfather: He has been primary caretaker; children’s stability and healing depend on continuity | Court: Award to grandfather best promotes children’s health, welfare, and happiness; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental liberty interest in child rearing is a fundamental constitutional right)
- Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979) (presumption that parents act in children’s best interests)
- Clark v. Wade, 273 Ga. 587 (2001) (factors and constitutional limits when third parties seek custody)
- Boddie v. Daniels, 288 Ga. 143 (2010) (no requirement to show parental unfitness before awarding custody to a third party in certain contexts)
- Trotter v. Ayres, 315 Ga. App. 7 (2011) (harm standard: clear-and-convincing showing of physical harm or significant, long-term emotional harm)
- Galtieri v. O’Dell, 295 Ga. App. 797 (2009) (application of harm standard in third-party custody disputes)
- Lively v. Bowen, 272 Ga. App. 479 (2005) (analysis of caretaker history and best-interest factors in third-party custody)
- Brooks v. Patterson, 265 Ga. 189 (1994) (constitutional protections for parental custody against state interference)