Lacy v. Lacy
320 Ga. App. 739
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- Fathers filed for divorce; temporary custody order gave mother primary physical custody with joint legal custody; emergency motion filed by father alleging mother drove with a child under the influence; emergency hearing denied change in custody and barred father from contact; multiple judges issued related orders restricting contact and addressing fees; orders were interlocutory in a pending divorce; appeals consolidated for review; attorney-fee award lacking statutory basis was vacated and remanded; separate rulings affirmed in related cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Judge Parrott should have recused himself | Lacy argues Parrott biased; asserts need for sua sponte recusal | Parrott's recusal not required absent statutory/ethical trigger; no preserved bias | No sua sponte recusal required; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether the May 9 order properly restricted contact and awarded fees | Restriction and fee award unsupported by clear statutory basis | Court properly restricted contact based on admitted behavior; error only for lack of fee basis | Restrictions upheld; attorney-fee award vacated and remanded for statutory basis |
| Whether Chief Judge Prior properly denied recusal motions and managed proceedings | Requests to recuse all judges were timely/properly supported | Motions untimely and inadequately supported; discretionary rulings proper | Prior’s rulings affirmed; recusal decision proper as untimely/insufficient |
| Whether social-media restrictions in Case A12A2341 were permissible | Restrictions on posting about the case violate First Amendment concerns | Cline had authority to impose restrictions in a divorce/custody context | Restrictions upheld as permissible under OCGA 9-11-65 (e) and case law on divorce proceedings |
| Whether the May 31 order properly addressed motions to recuse and new-trial issues | Challenges to recusal processes and new-trial should be reviewed | Procedural posture moot; issues already resolved on direct appeal | May 31 order affirmed; mootness of new-trial issue noted |
Key Cases Cited
- Leming v. State, 292 Ga. App. 138 (2008) (recusal standards; preserved objections required)
- Moon v. Moon, 277 Ga. 375 (2003) (statutory basis needed for fee awards; remand for showing basis)
- Ire the Interest of K. D., 272 Ga. App. 803 (2005) (contempt cannot be based on non-filed order)
- Thompson v. Thompson, 288 Ga. 4 (2010) (presumption of regularity; need transcript for best-interest findings)
- Maloof v. Maloof, 231 Ga. 811 (1974) (courts may require refrain from derogatory remarks about the other before children)
- Roberts v. Roberts, 226 Ga. 203 (1970) (courts may enforce contempt or restraining behavior in divorce context)