HARTMAN v. DE CARO
A24A0323
In the Court of Appeals of Georgia
April 25, 2024
MERCIER, Chief Judge.
FIFTH DIVISION. MERCIER, C. J., MCFADDEN, P. J., and RICKMAN, J. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk‘s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. https://www.gaappeals.us/rules
While they were in a romantic relationship, John De Caro and Nathan Hartman had two children via a surrogate in 2012. Hartman was named as the sole parent of the children. In 2015, Hartman and De Caro separated and, later that year, Hartman cut off communication between the children and De Caro.
In 2016, De Caro filed a petition to establish custody of the children, but as De Caro had no statutory rights to custody, the trial court denied De Caro‘s petition.1 On July 1, 2019, the equitable caregiver statute, codified as
Following a bench trial, the trial court issued a temporary order declaring De Caro as an equitable caregiver for the children and ordering joint legal and physical custody between De Caro and Hartman.2 Hartman filed this direct appeal, arguing, inter alia, that the trial court erred by finding that De Caro had standing to file an equitable caregiver petition, in its interpretation of the equitable caregiver statute, and by awarding joint custody to De Caro. However, as discussed below, we lack jurisdiction due to Hartman‘s failure to file an application for discretionary appeal, and accordingly we dismiss the appeal.
Generally, appeals from orders in “domestic relations cases” must be pursued through an application for discretionary appeal.
In order to determine whether the matter is entitled to a direct appeal, we look to the issue raised on appeal, even when the order at issue also ruled on child custody issues. Voyles v. Voyles, 301 Ga. 44, 47 (799 SE2d 160) (2017). As such, an order in a domestic relations case, which contained a ruling regarding child custody, may not be entitled to file a direct appeal if the issues raised on appeal challenge the domestic relations ruling. See id.
Hartman filed this action as a direct appeal of the trial court‘s order. In order to determine whether this Court has jurisdiction over the appeal, we look to the issues Hartman raised on appeal. Voyles, 301 Ga. at 47. Hartman argues that the trial court erred by determining that De Caro had standing to file an equitable caregiver petition and that the trial court misinterpreted the equitable caregiver statute. While Hartman also argues that the trial court erred by awarding joint custody to De Caro, he states in his appellate reply brief that “[t]he interpretation of
Further, we look to whether the “child custody issues are ancillary” to the domestic relations action. Hoover v. Hoover, 295 Ga. 132, 134 (1) (757 SE2d 838) (2014). If the child custody issues are ancillary to the domestic relations issue, “the determination of child custody does not transform the case into a ‘child custody case,’ as that phrase is used in
As such, this is not a separate child custody order being appealed. See Todd, 287 Ga. at 252 (1). Instead, this is the appeal of an equitable caregiver order, which includes an ancillary child custody determination. See id. (“[E]ven if the only relief sought on appeal pertains to that custody decision, the underlying subject matter is still” the equitable caregiver action.)
Because this is not a child custody case, but is an equitable caregiver case in which child custody is an issue,
Appeal dismissed. McFadden, P. J., and Rickman, J., concur.
MERCIER, Chief Judge.