lawskills
Google
search the Web search LawSkills.com
Did you know you can download our entire database for free?


Resources
[more] 

Georgia Caselaw:
Browse
Greatest Hits

Georgia Code: Browse

(external) Findlaw Georgia Law Resources


This site exists because of donors like you.

Thanks!


Lawskills.com Georgia Caselaw
HUNT v. CARTER.
S91A0678.
WELTNER, Justice.
Alimony; child support. Douglas Superior Court. Before Judge Messinger pro hac vice.
We granted this discretionary application to address the following:
Does a judgment awarding joint legal custody of a child pursuant to OCGA 19-9-6 preclude a monetary award of child support?
2. OCGA 19-9-5 provides expressly that "the term 'custody' shall not include payment of child support." 2
Hence, a parent may be required to support a child, notwithstanding the existence of "joint legal custody," as defined in OCGA 19-9-6. 3
Notes
1  It is the joint and several duty of each parent to provide for the maintenance, protection, and education of his child until the child reaches the age of majority, except to the extent that the duty of one parent is otherwise or further defined by court order.Note: OCGA 19-6-15, the Uniform Child Support Guidelines, provides that child support shall be determined under the guidelines, but may be adjusted up or down based upon "a written finding of special circumstances."The special circumstances may be any factor which the trier of fact deems to be required by the ends of justice. Some of the factors which may warrant such varia-
2  (a) In all proceedings under this article between parents it shall be expressly permissible for the parents of a minor child to present to the court an agreement respecting any and all issues concerning custody of the minor child. As used in this Code section, the term "custody" shall not include payment of child support.
3  (2) "Joint legal custody" means both parents have equal rights and responsibilities for major decisions concerning the child, including the child's education, health care. and religious training; provided, however, that the court may designate one parent to have sole power to make certain decisions while both parents retain equal rights and responsibilities for other decisions.
Duffy & Feemster, Robert J. Duffy, Dwight T. Feemster, T. Michael Martin, for appellee.
Lennard, Habibi & Rychlik, David M. Rychlik, Charles S. Hunter, for appellant.
DECIDED MAY 15, 1991.
Friday January 9 06:34 CST


This site exists because of donors like you.

Thanks!


Valid HTML 4.0!

Valid CSS!





Home - Tour - Disclaimer - Privacy - Contact Us
Copyright © 2000,2002,2004 Lawskills.com