Gottschalk v. Gottschalk
311 Ga. App. 304
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Appellant Gottschalk and appellee Gottschalk were divorced in 2005 with joint custody; appellee had primary physical custody and decision-making authority.
- In 2006 appellee sought to modify visitation to supervised and to have appellant undergo a psychological evaluation.
- Guardian ad litem and custody evaluator Dr. Siegel were appointed to assess the family and inform the court.
- The court issued orders limiting dissemination of Dr. Siegel's report and directing cooperation with the custody evaluation.
- From 2006 to 2009 the parties engaged in extensive motions, contempt petitions, and hearings surrounding custody and visitation.
- On December 15, 2008 the court granted the modification to supervised visitation and ordered counseling, with numerous post-judgment contempt and fee orders, all of which were challenged on appeal, and the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ordering a custody evaluation was proper in a visitation modification case | Gottschalk argues the court lacked authority to order custody evaluation in a visitation matter | Gottschalk contends OCGA allows custody evaluations in such contexts | Proper; custody evaluation authorized by statute. |
| Whether the children's therapist qualified as an expert for the modification hearing | Gottschalk claims improper expert qualification | Gottschalk contends therapist qualified by experience and training | No abuse of discretion; therapist properly qualified. |
| Whether the guardian ad litem's in-chambers statements require a mistrial | Guardian's statement about mandatory reporting prejudiced trial | No improper conduct; no mistrial required | No mistrial; guardian's actions did not violate confrontation rights. |
| Whether court-ordered restrictions on discussing the custody evaluator's report violated the orders' scope | Restrictions hampered ability to challenge evaluator's methodology | Orders clearly limited dissemination; parties consented | No reversible error; dissemination limits were proper. |
| Whether appellant's due process rights were violated by restrictions on challenging the evaluator's methodology | Appellant couldn't challenge the methodology without witness testimony | Due process satisfied; notice and opportunity to be heard provided | No due process violation; appellant had notice and opportunity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dellinger v. Dellinger, 278 Ga. 732 (Ga. 2004) (appointment of custody evaluation and related procedures cited)
- Homans v. Street, 237 Ga. 649 (Ga. 1976) (standard of review for custody visitation rulings)
- Agri-Cycle LLC v. Couch, 284 Ga. 90 (Ga. 2008) (abuse of discretion in expert qualification)
- Nix v. Long Mountain Resources, 262 Ga. 506 (Ga. 1992) (due process notice and opportunity to be heard)
- In the Interest of I.M.G., 276 Ga.App. 598 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005) (privilege vs. disclosure in guardianship/therapy context)
- In the Interest of D.W., 294 Ga.App. 89 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008) (therapist communications privilege in custody cases)