Harris v. Snelgrove
290 Ga. 181
| Ga. | 2011Background
- Harris (formerly Snelgrove) and Snelgrove married in 2002; they have a son, R.A.S., born 2002.
- Harris filed for divorce in 2009; grandparents intervened seeking custody of R.A.S.
- A guardian ad litem recommended custody to the paternal grandparents; trial was a three-day bench proceeding.
- The decree awarded sole legal/physical custody to the grandparents, set child support amounts (Harris $780/mo; Snelgrove $287/mo), and ordered Harris to pay the grandparents $20,000 as an equitable division of the marital estate.
- The trial court relied on the GAL’s recommendation and extensive evidence about the family, assets, and conduct; Harris appealed the denial of her motion for new trial as amended.
- The Supreme Court affirmed, addressing challenges to GAL cross-examination, custody standards, child-support calculation, and the equitable division.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether cross-examination of the GAL was properly limited | Harris contends GAL was improperly restricted on legal standards | Snelgrove/Grandparents argue GAL is an expert and not intended to state the law | No error; GAL may testify as to facts and best interests; trial court allowed factual cross-examination |
| Whether the custody award to grandparents complied with unfitness and best interests standards | Harris asserts parental custody should prevail absent clear unfitness | Grandparents contend clear and convincing evidence and best interests support custody to them | Reported evidence supported award to grandparents under best-interests framework |
| Whether the court properly used earning capacity for child-support calculation | Harris argues lower gross income (~$2,300/mo) should determine support | Court properly found minimum income of $5,000/mo given circumstances and concealment of assets | Court correctly considered earning capacity and asset-shifting; supported $5,000/mo minimum |
| Whether the $20,000 equitable division award was proper | Award was improper since residence was not marital property and Snelgrove's labor was not shown to increase value | Equitable division considers contributions to the marital estate; Snelgrove’s labor on the home justified the award | Valid as an equitable division reflecting contributions and marital estate |
Key Cases Cited
- Wade v. Wade, 272 Ga. 526 (2000) (parental custody preferred absent unfitness; best interests standard)
- Clark v. Wade, 273 Ga. 587 (2001) (unfitness and best interests framework for third-party custody)
- Herrin v. Herrin, 287 Ga. 427 (2010) (considering earning capacity and asset concealment in support decisions)
- Moore v. Moore, 249 Ga. 27 (1982) (equitable division factors for marital estate)
- Albany Surg., P.C. v. Dept. of Community Health, 257 Ga. App. 636 (2002) (GAL’s role and limitations; expert testimony in custody cases)