Coppedge v. Coppedge

Summary

The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed in part and reversed in part an order denying a father's petition to modify custody and visitation and holding him in contempt of a divorce decree. The court held that the decree was ambiguous regarding the father's obligation to pay for after-school and summer care provided by a babysitter rather than St. Luke School, so the contempt finding based on reduced payments was improper. The court affirmed the contempt finding for denying the mother's court-ordered visitation, upheld the denial of visitation modification, and rejected the father's due process claims.

Holdings

1. The decree was ambiguous concerning whether husband's obligation to pay a proportional share of after-school and summer care extended to care provided by someone other than St. Luke.
2. The trial court abused its discretion by holding husband in contempt for reducing his child-support payments after wife withdrew the children from St. Luke's after-school and summer programs.
3. The trial court properly held husband in contempt for taking the children out of town on wife's birthday and thereby denying her court-ordered custodial time.
4. The trial court did not clearly abuse its discretion by denying husband's request to modify visitation.
5. The eight-month delay between the hearing and entry of the final order, and the trial court's handling of husband's motions for reconsideration, did not violate procedural due process.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the divorce decree clearly and definitely required husband to pay a proportional share of after-school and summer child-care expenses provided by an in-home babysitter after the children stopped attending St. Luke.
2. Whether the trial court properly held husband in contempt for reducing his child-support payments after the children stopped attending St. Luke's care programs.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by holding husband in contempt for denying wife court-ordered visitation.
4. Whether the trial court clearly abused its discretion by denying husband's petition to modify visitation.
5. Whether the delay in entering the final order and the trial court's handling of husband's motions for reconsideration violated procedural due process.

Disposition

reversed_in_part