361 Ga. App. 721
Ga. Ct. App.2021Background
- Craig Clark, the child's stepfather, sued under OCGA § 19-7-3.1 seeking equitable-caregiver standing and joint legal/secondary physical custody after the child’s mother died.
- Clark alleged he lived with the mother and child for years, married the mother, helped care for and support the child, and formed a parent-child bond.
- The trial court held evidentiary hearings, found Clark met the statutory elements by clear and convincing evidence, and entered an order granting equitable-caregiver standing and temporary visitation.
- Wayne Teasley, the biological father and appellant, failed to file a required responsive affidavit below and appealed the standing and temporary visitation orders.
- On appeal Teasley argued the statute is unconstitutional, that the orders conflicted with Land v. Wrobel, and that the trial court erred by not including specific written findings of fact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Clark) | Defendant's Argument (Teasley) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of OCGA § 19-7-3.1 | Statute is valid and authorized standing for equitable caregivers | Statute violates due process and exceeds constitutional bounds | Not addressed on appeal — trial court did not distinctly rule on the constitutional claim, so appellate court declined to decide it |
| Applicability of Land v. Wrobel to this case | Equitable-caregiver statute governs; Land is inapplicable | Trial court’s award conflicts with the principles of Land v. Wrobel and should be reversed | Land is inapposite because it predates and does not involve the equitable-caregiver statute; statute controls |
| Requirement for specific written findings of fact | Statute’s required findings (OCGA § 19-7-3.1(d)) were made by the court; no additional specific written findings are mandated | Trial court erred by not including more detailed written findings of fact in the order | OCGA § 19-7-3.1 does not require the kind of specific written findings that the grandparent-visitation statute mandates; trial court’s order satisfied statutory requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- Haynes v. Wells, 273 Ga. 106 (court will not decide a constitutional question not distinctly ruled on below)
- Franzen v. City of Atlanta, 359 Ga. App. 462 (constitutional issue not properly before appellate court when trial court did not rule)
- Land v. Wrobel, 220 Ga. 260 (custody decision predating the equitable-caregiver statute; not controlling here)
- Van Leuvan v. Carlisle, 322 Ga. App. 576 (noting the grandparent-visitation statute uniquely requires specific written findings of fact)