Stone v. Stone
297 Ga. 451
| Ga. | 2015Background
- Husband and Wife (who married twice) have one minor son; Grandmother (maternal) intervened and sought custodial rights.
- Trial court found Wife unfit; Husband fit; Grandmother had been primary caretaker for most of the child’s life.
- Trial court awarded Husband primary physical custody and joint legal custody to Husband and Grandmother; Grandmother given visitation as well.
- Husband appealed the award of joint legal custody to a parent and a grandparent; Georgia Supreme Court granted review under Rule 34.
- Majority held Georgia statutory scheme limits joint custody to parents and therefore vacated the joint legal custody award; dissent would have upheld the award as being in the child’s best interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a court may award joint legal custody to a parent and a grandparent when a parent is a fit custodian | Husband: joint legal custody with a grandparent is improper under statute; only parents may share joint custody | Grandmother: OCGA §19-7-1(b.1) makes best-interest determinative and permits third-party custody outcomes; joint custody with a parent can be best for the child | Held for Husband: Statutory definitions restrict "joint legal custody" to parents only; award vacated |
| Whether statutes permit limiting a fit parent’s custody by creating joint legal custody with a third party | Husband: allowing joint custody with third parties would conflict with statutory policy favoring parental sharing and raise constitutional concerns | Grandmother: courts must consider all circumstances; best-interest analysis can justify joint arrangements despite definitional language | Held for Husband: Legislature distinguished "joint" (parents only) from "sole" (person may include non-parent); courts lack authority to create parent+third-party joint legal custody |
| Whether grandparents retain alternative remedies if joint legal custody is disallowed | Husband: visitation statutes and sole-custody-to-a-person rules suffice; grandparents can get visitation or sole custody if no parent suitable | Grandmother: such remedies may be inadequate given de facto parental role | Held for Husband: Statute encourages grandparent contact and visitation; grandparents can get visitation or sole custody where no parent suitable |
| Whether statutory interpretation should avoid constitutional problems | Husband: interpreting statute to permit parent+third-party joint custody would raise parental-rights constitutional concerns; avoid that by reading joint custody as parents-only | Grandmother: best-interest standard in §19-7-1(b.1) permits flexibility despite definitional provisions | Held for Husband: Court prefers construction that avoids serious constitutional issues and follows plain statutory terms |
Key Cases Cited
- Clark v. Wade, 273 Ga. 587 (discussing clear-and-convincing standard for third-party custody under OCGA § 19-7-1(b.1))
- Brooks v. Parkerson, 265 Ga. 189 (constitutional concerns regarding limiting parental custody)
- Slakman v. Continental Cas. Co., 277 Ga. 189 (rules of statutory construction: give words ordinary meaning and avoid surplusage)
- Mauldin v. Mauldin, 322 Ga. App. 507 (affirming joint legal custody arrangements in certain grandparents/father disputes)
- Galtieri v. O’Dell, 295 Ga. App. 797 (articulating presumptions and burden-shifting under OCGA § 19-7-1(b.1))
- Haley v. State, 289 Ga. 515 (statutory interpretation to avoid constitutional issues)