Charlot v. Goldwire
310 Ga. App. 463
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Charlot, biological father, filed legitimation and custody/visitation against Goldwire for B.C.
- Goldwire answered and counterclaimed for custody, support, and attorney fees.
- DNA testing was ordered and conducted by agreement to establish paternity; no hearing on paternity held.
- Trial court granted petition, awarded Charlot joint physical and legal custody; Goldwire designated primary custodian.
- Charlot ordered to pay $551 monthly child support; Goldwire awarded $2,500 in attorney fees.
- Record lacks transcripts of hearings; it is unclear when Charlot was represented by counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Custody/visitation in child’s best interests | Charlot argues equal time or more access was denied. | Goldwire contends custody/visitation aligned with best interests. | Custody/visitation found to be in best interests; supported by record evidence. |
| Compliance with child-support guidelines | Charlot claims miscalculation of support. | Goldwire asserts proper application of guidelines. | Support calculated under OCGA 19-6-15 using pro rata income; guidelines presumptive amount recognized. |
| Attorney fees award validity | Charlot challenges the attorney fees awarded to Goldwire. | Goldwire asserts statutory basis for fees. | Attorney fees award vacated for lack of basis in order and absence of transcript; remanded to specify basis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fine v. Fine, 281 Ga. 850 (Ga. 2007) (best interests standard governs custody when transcripts lacking)
- Roberts v. Tharp, 286 Ga. 579 (Ga. 2010) (child-support guidelines apply as a rebuttable presumption)
- Spurlock v. Dept. of Human Resources, 286 Ga. 512 (Ga. 2010) (guidelines are presumptive but must be grounded in evidence)
- Blue v. Blue, 279 Ga. 550 (Ga. 2005) (allowing consideration of evidence when calculating support)
- Padilla v. Padilla, 282 Ga. 273 (Ga. 2007) (attorney-fee awards require statutory or contractual basis)
- Sinkwich v. Conner, 288 Ga.App. 320 (Ga. App. 2007) (need for clarity when reviewing attorney-fee awards)
- Cotting v. Cotting, 261 Ga.App. 370 (Ga. App. 2003) (remand for clarification of attorney-fee basis)
- Webb v. Watkins, 283 Ga.App. 385 (Ga. App. 2007) (remand where the basis for fees was not specified)