Strickland v. Strickland, 298 Ga. 630

Background

In 2006 grandparents (Roy & Betty Strickland) obtained emergency custody of their three grandchildren after concerns about the mother, Lea Strickland. Grandparents had temporary custody through July 2010 with mother granted supervised visitation.
Grandparents petitioned for permanent custody in 2010; after transfer to Cobb County Superior Court, a five‑day bench trial resulted in a judgment awarding grandparents permanent custody and conditional unsupervised visitation for the mother.
The superior court found (inter alia) mother lacked steady income and stable residence, had a history of substance use and inconsistent compliance with treatment, had not fully engaged with the children’s therapists, and displayed erratic conduct in the children’s presence.
The court credited the GAL and the children’s treating psychologists that each child had formed strong bonds with the grandparents, had psychological needs being met by grandparents, and would suffer significant long‑term emotional harm if placed with mother.
The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding grandparents did not meet the heavy burden to overcome the parental custody presumption and making contrary factual findings about mother’s stability and sobriety.
The Georgia Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding the Court of Appeals failed to give proper deference to the superior court’s factual findings and credibility determinations and that the superior court’s findings supported a rebuttal of the parental presumption and an award of custody to grandparents.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Grandparents)	Defendant's Argument (Strickland)	Held
Standard of review for bench trial factual findings	Court of Appeals should defer to superior court's credibility and factual findings	Court of Appeals reviewed evidence and found superior court’s findings unsupported	Supreme Court: appellate court must give deference; Court of Appeals failed to do so and erred
Whether parental presumption was rebutted (harm standard)	Clear and convincing evidence showed children would suffer physical or significant long‑term emotional harm if returned to mother	Mother argued evidence did not meet the high clear-and-convincing burden; Court of Appeals agreed	Held: Superior court’s findings (bonding, therapists’ testimony, mother’s instability/substance use) rebutted presumption by clear and convincing evidence
Whether award to grandparents was in children’s best interest	Given harm and stable care by grandparents, permanent custody to grandparents was in children’s best interest	Mother argued she was capable, bonded to children, compliant with treatment, and could care for children	Held: Based on superior court findings, award of permanent custody to grandparents was authorized and in children’s best interest
Appellate scope — whether Court of Appeals should independently reweigh credibility	Grandparents argued reweighing improperly supplanted trial court’s role	Mother urged reversal since Court of Appeals found contrary facts	Held: Appellate court improperly reweighed evidence; it must view evidence favorably to trial court and not set aside findings unless clearly erroneous

Key Cases Cited

Clark v. Wade, 273 Ga. 587 (2001) (sets burden and factors for third‑party custody to overcome parental presumption)
Ellis v. Ellis, 290 Ga. 616 (2012) (bench‑trial factual findings not set aside unless clearly erroneous)
Langley v. Langley, 279 Ga. 374 (2005) (deference to trial court credibility determinations)
Tanksley v. Parker, 278 Ga. 877 (2005) (appellate review standard for bench trial findings)
Whitehead v. Myers, 311 Ga. App. 680 (2011) (appellate instruction to view evidence in light most favorable to trial court)
Haskell v. Haskell, 286 Ga. 112 (2009) (trial court resolves testimonial conflicts)
Hughes v. State, 296 Ga. 744 (2015) (absence of a finding can reflect considered rejection of evidence)
Harris v. Snelgrove, 290 Ga. 181 (2011) (best‑interest analysis after presumption rebutted)
In re D. W., 311 Ga. App. 680 (2011) (best‑interest considerations when awarding custody to third party)