Jеnnifer Landrum Hadden (“Ms. Hadden”) appeals from the trial court’s final judgment and decree of divorce ending her marriage to Thomas Chad Hadden (“Mr. Hadden”). 1 For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
The couple was married in 1993; the marriage produced two children, one born in 1995, and one born in 1997. Mr. Hadden filed his complaint for divorce on September 30, 2005. The triаl court issued a temporary order on December 29, 2005, providing for joint legal and physical custody of the children. After receiving reports from the children’s guardian ad litem and from a psychologist who examined Ms. Hadden, the court amended its temporary order on February 27, 2006, and gave temporary custody оf the children to Mr. Hadden, with visitation rights to Ms. Hadden; the court also awarded temporary alimony to Ms. Haddеn. Ms. Hadden then submitted a report from a forensic psychiatrist who evaluated her, and the court issued the second amended temporary order on June 28, 2006, again providing for joint legal and physical custоdy of the children. In a third amended temporary order issued on October 4, 2006, the trial court increased Ms. Hаdden’s visitation time with the children, and ordered that both parties meet with the psychologist who provided the earlier report. The court issued its final judgment and decree of divorce on February 3, 2007, and awarded joint legal and physical custody, with Mr. Hadden having primary physical custody; no child support was awardеd to either party. Alimony was awarded to Ms. Hadden.
1. The trial court’s final order does not contain seрarate findings of fact, and Ms. Hadden asserts that this is error. However, the record is devoid of any request by her or Mr. Hadden that such be provided, and thus, none was required to be made in this non-jury trial.
Messaadi v. Messaadi,
*425
2. Ms. Hadden urges that in making its final custody award, the trial court did not rulе in the best interests of the children, and imposed upon her the burden to disprove certain allegatiоns by Mr. Hadden, rather than treat the parties equally. See OCGA§ 19-9-3 (a) & (b). However, nothing in the court’s final order, or the record, shows that the court’s custody ruling was based on any standard other than what is in the best interests of the сhildren, and nothing shows that the court required Ms. Hadden to disprove any allegations of Mr. Hadden’s. Record evidence shows that the psychologist, who performed multiple custody evaluations, reported thаt Ms. Hadden operated under the influence of delusions, and concluded that it was in the best interests of the children that primary physical custody be placed in Mr. Hadden. Although Ms. Hadden asserts that other evidenсe presented supports a conclusion that she was at least as fit to serve as a custodiаl parent as Mr. Hadden, such evidence only presents a question of fact requiring the trial court’s resоlution under the proper standard, and there was no abuse of the trial court’s discretion.
See Frazier v. Frazier,
3. Ms. Hadden also argues that the trial court could not alter its temporary custody orders without a demonstrated change in material condition. However, the statutory provision she cites, OCGA § 19-9-1 (b), applies to modifications after a final custody award, not to temporary awards. See
Daniel v. Daniel,
4. In its final order, the trial court awarded alimony to Ms. Hadden in the amount of $1,000 a month, for a period of three years. Ms. Hadden contends that, as her temporary award of alimony was $2,130 a month, the award in the final order is inadequate, espеcially in light of her car payment of $806 a month. However, the trial court found that Ms. Hadden holds a doctoral degree in education, “has not made tremendous efforts” to support herself during the pendenсy of the suit, and should be self-supporting in her real estate business in three to four years. Again, to the extent thаt evidence appears in the
*426
record, it supports the trial court’s findings, and no abuse of discretiоn has been shown.
Rieffel v. Rieffel,
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
This Court automatically granted Wife’s discretionary appeal pursuant to this Court’s pilot project. See
Wright v. Wright,
The only transcript appearing in the record is that of the hearing prior to the trial court’s first temporary order; the trial court’s orders show that at least four other hearings were held.