Parker v. Parker, 293 Ga. 300

Background

JoBeth Parker (Georgia resident) filed an original UIFSA petition in Georgia (while still married) to establish child support for two children; husband James Parker (nonresident) lived in Alaska.
At filing: older child (16) enrolled at New Jersey boarding school; younger child (7) lived with mother in Georgia and attended private day school.
Trial court awarded joint legal custody; primary physical custody of older child to father (per preference) and younger child to mother.
The court prepared separate child-support worksheets for each child, but sheets were provided to the parties only after the hearing; the final order (incorporating the worksheets) effectively set both parties’ periodic child-support obligations to zero by applying nonspecific deviations and required each to pay half of each child’s private school tuition (father to pay at least $22,000 for older child).
The mother appealed, arguing the court abused discretion by (1) using nonspecific deviations to “zero out” obligations without adequate factual support, (2) using inaccurate figures on worksheets (overstated tuition, misallocated childcare/dental premiums), and (3) failing to account properly for boarding expenses and tuition discounts and the resulting windfall to father.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether this original UIFSA petition is an "alimony" matter within Georgia Supreme Court jurisdiction	Parker: Because parties were married and child support functions as alimony, this court has jurisdiction	Parker was seeking UIFSA relief outside a divorce decree; normally such original petitions fall to Court of Appeals	Court: Jurisdiction proper — child support here constituted alimony because parties were married and no divorce decree resolved support; Supreme Court has jurisdiction.
Whether nonspecific deviations that reduced father's support for younger child to zero were permissible and supported	Parker: Deviation unsupported, used factors that should have been itemized (e.g., travel) and harmed younger child; nonspecific deviation cannot rely on incorrect or preexisting sibling obligations	Father: Court considered father’s obligations to older child and visitation costs; deviations discretionary	Court: Trial court may consider sibling obligations and travel in nonspecific deviation; discretion to deviate reviewed for abuse, but deviations must be factually supported.
Whether child-support worksheets contained material factual errors that vitiate the deviation calculations	Parker: Worksheets used incorrect tuition figures, misallocated childcare and insurance amounts, and were used post‑hearing to reach a predetermined zero‑support result	Father: (acknowledged at least some worksheet errors should be corrected)	Court: Worksheets contained material inaccuracies and result‑oriented number‑manipulation; remanded for recalculation with accurate figures and revised findings.
Whether the order improperly treated boarding expenses/tuition and produced an unfair "windfall" to father	Parker: Requiring mother to pay half of older child’s boarding/tuition (including living costs) while relieving father of younger child support unjustly benefits father and harms younger child	Father/Court below: Parties agreed to share tuition; boarding cost was contemplated as part of education expense	Court: Boarding includes food/lodging (general support); agreement to split tuition exists but the worksheets failed to reflect consequences; court did not err as matter of law in principle but abused discretion given inaccurate factual basis — remand required.

Key Cases Cited

Spurlock v. Dept. of Human Resources, 286 Ga. 512 (discusses when child support constitutes alimony for jurisdictional purposes)
O'Quinn v. O'Quinn, 217 Ga. 431 (original UIFSA child-support petitions generally not within this Court when arising after divorce)
Brown v. Georgia Dept. of Human Resources, 263 Ga. 53 (jurisdictional discussion and collection of child support arrearages)
Dean v. Dean, 289 Ga. 664 (statement that child support is a form of alimony)
Black v. Black, 292 Ga. 691 (standards for deviations and review of visitation/travel expense deviations)
Walls v. Walls, 291 Ga. 757 (orders must include required deviation findings on worksheet; blank schedule E reversible error)
Stowell v. Huguenard, 288 Ga. 628 (compliance with OCGA § 19-6-15 is mandatory)
Turner v. Turner, 285 Ga. 866 (reversible error when court awards expenses outside prescribed worksheet methodology)
Johnson v. Ware, 313 Ga. App. 774 (reversing where tuition awards were treated outside worksheet calculations)
Taylor v. Taylor, 228 Ga. 173 (boarding constitutes general support; cannot double-count boarding as separate expense)
Marshall v. Marshall, 247 Ga. 598 (interpreting ambiguity to avoid double payment of support)
Jenkins v. Jenkins, 233 Ga. 902 (college/education awards interpreted in context of overall support)
Hamlin v. Ramey, 291 Ga. App. 222 (qualitative deviation determinations committed to factfinder discretion)