Hardin v. Hardin, 338 Ga. App. 541

Father moved to modify custody/visitation, seeking sole physical custody and limiting mother’s visitation per guardian ad litem recommendation. The parties previously consented to suspend mother’s regular visitation in 2012.
Trial court ordered a professional evaluation; evaluator concluded mother had significant mental-health concerns and recommended treatment before visitation; children stated they did not want contact.
On December 17, 2015 the court entered a "final" order permitting the mother to resume visitation with the younger child only after she completed eight weeks of individual therapy and then could "initiate" weekly therapeutic sessions supervised by a child psychologist; the order required a mental-health professional to provide recommendations and a report to the court.
The order tied the triggering of visitation to the mother’s completion of therapy and related reports, effectively allowing visitation to commence upon those events without further court review.
Father appealed, arguing the provision created an impermissible self-executing change in visitation, the order lacked a parenting plan, and the court failed to apply the child’s best interests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the order created an impermissible self-executing change in visitation	Hardin (father): the provision automatically changes visitation based on third-party reports and thus unlawfully delegates judicial authority	Mother: the change is tied to completion of therapy (a determinable event) and court considered best interests	Court: Vacated — the provision was an improper self-executing change because it delegated timing/assessment to nonjudicial actors and lacked flexibility to ensure the child’s best interests at time of change
Whether court erred by not including a parenting plan	Hardin: absence of a parenting plan renders the order deficient	Mother: not argued in detail on appeal	Not reached — court vacated order on self-executing provision so this issue was unnecessary to decide
Whether court failed to consider child's best interests	Hardin: the automatic mechanism failed to ensure best-interests assessment at the time visitation would commence	Mother: trial court expressly found long-term best interests favored attempting repair of relationship	Court: The order’s automatic trigger made any best-interests protection illusory; vacated on that basis

Ezunu v. Moultrie, 334 Ga. App. 270 (appellate standard for custody/visitation review)
Wrightson v. Wrightson, 266 Ga. 493 (trial court cannot delegate custody/visitation decisions)
Lester v. Boles, 335 Ga. App. 891 (distinguishing permissible self-executing provisions from impermissible ones)
Dellinger v. Dellinger, 278 Ga. 732 (automatic future custody changes based on relocation invalid)
Johnson v. Johnson, 290 Ga. 359 (rejecting counselor-determined termination of supervised visits)
Weaver v. Jones, 260 Ga. 493 (upholding child-choice at age-based milestone)
Pearce v. Pearce, 244 Ga. 69 (upholding age-based custody choice)
Scott v. Scott, 276 Ga. 372 (age-based changes distinguished from delegation/remarriage/relocation triggers)