Ezunu v. Moultrie
334 Ga. App. 270
Ga. Ct. App.2015Background
- Parents originally had joint legal custody; father had primary physical custody from a 2012 Muscogee County order.
- In 2013 children reported physical abuse by father; they were placed in foster care and mother filed for modification of custody.
- Temporary 2013 order granted mother sole legal and physical custody, denied father visitation, and issued a one-year family violence protective order; guardian ad litem (GAL) was appointed.
- GAL’s year-long investigation found the children fearful of the father and reluctant to see him; GAL could not observe father–child interactions due to the protective order and said her investigation was therefore incomplete.
- At trial father admitted using corporal punishment (a switch) as discipline; trial court found children traumatized and fearful and awarded mother sole legal and physical custody.
- Judgment denied immediate visitation and provided a phased visitation plan to be implemented and expanded at the children’s therapist’s discretion (from supervised phone calls to supervised visits up to 4 hours, then increases to eventual every-other-weekend unsupervised visitation).
Issues
| Issue | Moultrie’s Argument | Ezunu’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by adopting GAL recommendations despite GAL’s incomplete investigation | GAL’s recommendations were reliable and supported denying/limiting visitation | GAL’s investigation was incomplete (couldn’t observe father) so trial court should not have relied solely on GAL | Court held trial court did not abuse discretion: it considered GAL plus other evidence (children’s fear, father’s admissions) before deciding custody and visitation (except for the self-executing provision) |
| Whether visitation provision impermissibly delegated future custody decisions to therapist (self-executing change) | GAL/therapist-guided phased plan protects children and is practical for rehabilitation | Automatic modification based on therapist’s determination improperly abdicates court’s duty to determine child’s best interest | Court held the phased, therapist-controlled visitation provision was an invalid self-executing change of visitation and must be struck; remainder of judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- King v. King, 284 Ga. 364 (trial court cannot substitute GAL recommendation for its own independent best-interest determination)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 290 Ga. 359 (self-executing changes in custody/visitation that materially affect rights must not delegate the court’s best-interest inquiry to nonjudicial actors)
- Jackson v. Sanders, 333 Ga. App. 544 (trial court’s custody modifications reviewed for abuse of discretion; evidence supporting ruling precludes reversal)
- Rumley-Miawama v. Miawama, 284 Ga. 811 (discussing limits on delegating custodial decisions)