Savannah GA Divorce Lawyer - Penns resume divorce proceedings

BBC News

Oscar winner Sean Penn and his actress wife Robin Wright Penn have filed for divorce for a third time, according to US reports.

People magazine reported Wright Penn filed the petition last week, citing "irreconcilable differences".

The couple, who wed in 1996, have twice begun divorce proceedings - in December 2007 and April 2009 - only to withdraw their petitions shortly after.

They have two children, daughter Dylan Francis, 18, and son Hopper Jack, 16.

People reported the couple have agreed to share custody of their son.

Wright Penn first filed for divorce in 2007 before legal proceedings were dismissed four months later.

Penn petitioned again in April earlier this year, only to withdraw the request less than a month later.

Penn won an Oscar for his role in Milk at the Academy Awards in February, but eyebrows were raised when he did not thank his wife in his acceptance speech.

The 48-year-old was previously married to pop star Madonna, with whom he co-starred in 1986 film Shanghai Surprise.

Wright Penn's movies include The Princess Bride, Forrest Gump and recent thriller State of Play.

The actress, 42, will soon be seen opposite Jim Carrey in a computer-animated version of A Christmas Carol.




Savannah GA Divorce Lawyer
GA Uncontested Divorce - Georgia Contested Divorce
-

We specialize in: Georgia Separation Agreements - Spousal Support - Property Division - Alimony - Military Divorce - Contempt Actions in Divorce Cases, Uncontested Divorce, Savannah Georgia Noncontested divorce - Child Custody Attorney / Custody modification - Child Support Modification - Child Visitation

Savannah GA, Richmond Hill, GA, Fort Stewart, Hinesville, Georgia Family Law Lawyer
| |
Yemen Child Bride Granted Divorce at Age 10 Now Sorry for Advertising Her Plight

Nujood Ali gained global notoriety for her brave fight against her much older, abusive husband, but where she has been left since then is nowhere near where she dreamed she would end up.

By The Staff at wowOwow.com

Last year, Nujood was even named one of Glamour magazine’s women of the year, along with Hillary Clinton and Nicole Kidman, for bravely taking the stand in defense of herself. Her story is coming out in book form in 20 languages. But CNN recently went to visit the girl who, at the age of ten, became a heroine to many in the effort to save little girls from marriage. But Nujood says despite her fame and the attention paid to her story, she has received little help to better her impoverished life, and she is having a hard time dealing with the media attention and the aftermath.

Monetary donations enabled Nujood to go to a private school, but she refuses to go regularly. She initially attended, after the divorce, but her attendance has plummeted. Her family isn’t being very supportive of her, and her lawyer, Shada Nasser, told CNN she thinks little Nujood is being victimized by the family because they think her fame should bring them fortune.

"There is no change at all since going on television. I hoped there was someone to help us, but we didn’t find anyone to help us. It hasn’t changed a thing. They said they were going to help me and no one has helped me. I wish I had never spoken to the media," Nujood told CNN, adding that she feels like an outcast among friends and family for bringing the spotlight onto herself and the controversial issue.

So what can be done to help this little girl go back to a "normal" life? We’re not sure, but she certainly deserves the chance to be a happy-go-lucky child like any other girl her age, and not to endure the scorn and humiliation she seems to be facing for trying to save her own life.

Savannah GA Divorce Lawyer
GA Uncontested Divorce - Georgia Contested Divorce
-

We specialize in: Georgia Separation Agreements - Spousal Support - Property Division - Alimony - Military Divorce - Contempt Actions in Divorce Cases, Uncontested Divorce, Savannah Georgia Noncontested divorce - Child Custody Attorney / Custody modification - Child Support Modification - Child Visitation

Savannah GA, Richmond Hill, GA, Fort Stewart, Hinesville, Georgia Family Law Lawyer
| |
O.C. man gets 17 years for threats to kill ex-wife, judge

Tami Abdollah in Orange County
https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/08/oc-man-sentenced-to-17-years-for-threatening-to-kill-exwife-attorney-police-officers.html

August 27, 2009

A 45-year-old Orange County man was sentenced Thursday to a maximum 17 years in prison for possessing homemade explosive devices with the intent to kill his former wife, her divorce attorney, the family court judge and Huntington Beach Police Department officers.

Ronald Gary Turner of Costa Mesa was on probation in a separate domestic violence case against his ex-wife that resulted in three restraining orders when he stalked her and her divorce attorney, and threatened to kill the woman by shooting her in the face, said Deputy Dist. Atty. Israel Claustro.

Turner also threatened to shoot the judge presiding over the divorce case, and threatened to commit suicide by creating a standoff with police and using the situation to detonate remote pipe bombs with timers.

Turner was found guilty of 15 felony counts, including stalking, possession of a destructive device with intent to injure, possession of a homemade deadly weapon and possession of a loaded firearm in public.

Defense attorney Omar Abukurah filed a notice of appeal in court. He could not be reached for comment.

The couple, married for 14 years, divorced in 2007, Claustro said. Turner’s estranged wife kicked him out of the house and eventually gained custody of their sons, 11 and 13. Turner’s child support payments also “went up, and his visitation rights were taken from him,” Claustro said.

On April 4, 2008, Turner was placed on probation after pleading guilty to four misdemeanor violations of a domestic violence restraining order. On July 1, 2008, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department received information from Huntington Beach and Newport Beach police that Turner may be in possession of bombs and weapons and had made potential threats to his estranged wife, her divorce attorney, a Huntington Beach police detective and the presiding judge.

The next day he did not appear at the court-ordered batterer’s treatment program and a bench warrant was issued. Later that day, authorities pulled Turner’s car over in a traffic stop on the Garden Grove Freeway and recovered handcuffs, pepper spray, throwing knives and a stolen 9-millimeter firearm with its serial numbers removed.

During a subsequent search of his Costa Mesa home, they found three homemade bombs with two timers, two homemade guns, bomb-making materials, tactical equipment, a bulletproof vest and listening devices.

Expert witnesses from the Orange County Sheriff’s Department bomb squad testified in the two-week jury trial that the homemade devices were “the most sophisticated destructive devices ever found in California,” Claustro said.

Turner, who worked as a cable network installer, “did a lot of homework and research,” Claustro said.

-----
Savannah GA Divorce Lawyer
GA Uncontested Divorce - Georgia Contested Divorce
-

We specialize in: Georgia Separation Agreements - Spousal Support - Property Division - Alimony - Military Divorce - Contempt Actions in Divorce Cases, Uncontested Divorce, Savannah Georgia Noncontested divorce - Child Custody Attorney / Custody modification - Child Support Modification - Child Visitation

Savannah GA, Richmond Hill, GA, Fort Stewart, Hinesville, Georgia Family Law Lawyer
| |
Terminating a parents rights - Savannah GA Custody Lawyer

THE INTEREST OF CHILDREN.

"Before terminating a parents rights, a juvenile court must employ a two-prong test. In the first prong, the court must decide whether there is present clear and convincing evidence of parental misconduct or inability. OCGA § 15-11-94 (a). Parental misconduct or inability, in turn, is proven by evidence showing: (1) that the child is deprived; (2) that lack of proper parental care or control is the cause of deprivation; (3) that the cause of deprivation is likely to continue or will not likely be remedied; and (4) that continued deprivation is likely to cause serious physical, mental, emotional, or moral harm to the child. OCGA § 15-11-94 (b) (4) (A). In the second prong of the termination test, the juvenile court must consider whether termination of parental rights would be in the best interest of the child." See In the Interest of R. N. H., 286 Ga.App. 737, 739-740 (650 S.E.2d 397) (2007).

-----
Savannah GA Divorce Lawyer
GA Uncontested Divorce - Georgia Contested Divorce
-

We specialize in: Georgia Separation Agreements - Spousal Support - Property Division - Alimony - Military Divorce - Contempt Actions in Divorce Cases, Uncontested Divorce, Savannah Georgia Noncontested divorce - Child Custody Attorney / Custody modification - Child Support Modification - Child Visitation

Savannah GA, Richmond Hill, GA, Fort Stewart, Hinesville, Georgia Family Law Lawyer
| |
Robin Wright Penn files for divorce
(AP) - 23 hours ago
SAN FRANCISCO — Robin Wright and her husband, Sean Penn, are calling it quits on their more than decade-long marriage.
People magazine reports that Wright filed for divorce from Penn Aug. 12 in Marin County, Calif.
The magazine says Wright and Penn, who have had a tumultuous relationship, have agreed to share custody of their 16-year-old son, Hopper Jack. Court papers cite "irreconcilable differences" for the split.
A representative for Wright did not return an e-mail seeking comment.
The couple married in April 1996. The Penns have twice before filed for divorce or separation only to dismiss their petition a short time later.
Sean Penn won an Oscar for his role in "Milk" at the Academy Awards in February but did not thank his wife in his acceptance speech.Savannah GA Divorce Lawyer
GA Uncontested Divorce - Georgia Contested Divorce
-

We specialize in: Georgia Separation Agreements - Spousal Support - Property Division - Alimony - Military Divorce - Contempt Actions in Divorce Cases, Uncontested Divorce, Savannah Georgia Noncontested divorce - Child Custody Attorney / Custody modification - Child Support Modification - Child Visitation

Savannah GA, Richmond Hill, GA, Fort Stewart, Hinesville, Georgia Family Law Lawyer
| |
Chatham County GA Divorce Lawyer
-----

2008-GA-A0630.009
JOHNSON v. TAYLOR
JOHNSON
v.
TAYLOR.

A08A0614.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

June 27, 2008

SMITH, Presiding Judge.

Kurtis Taylor petitioned to adopt his stepson, R.C.J., and to terminate the parental rights of Frederick Johnson, R.C.J.'s biological father, pursuant to OCGA §§ 19-8-6 and 19-8-10. Johnson objected and sought to maintain his parental rights in his son. Following a hearing, the trial court granted Taylor's petition and entered a final decree of adoption. For reasons that follow, we affirm.

On appeal from an order terminating parental rights based on an adoption petition, we construe the evidence favorably to the trial court's ruling and determine "whether any rational trier of fact could have found by clear and convincing evidence that the biological parent's rights to custody have been lost." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Sellers v. Sellers, 277 Ga. App. 814 (627 SE2d 882) (2006). We do not weigh the evidence or assess witness credibility, but defer to the trial court's factual findings and affirm unless this standard is not met. Davis v. Rathel, 273 Ga. App. 183 (614 SE2d 823) (2005).

So viewed, the evidence shows that R.C.J. was born on December 19, 1997, and his parents divorced in May 2000. Pursuant to the divorce settlement agreement, which was incorporated into the divorce decree, the mother retained physical custody of R.C.J., she and Johnson had joint legal custody, and Johnson was entitled to weekly supervised visitation. The supervised visitation was to continue until Johnson passed six months of drug screens, after which his visitation rights would increase. The agreement further required Johnson to pay the mother $500 per month in child support and share in R.C.J.'s medical and dental expenses.

The mother married Taylor in September 2001, when R.C.J. was three years old. At the hearing, the mother described R.C.J.'s relationship with Taylor as "very close," noting that R.C.J. has never referred to anyone but Taylor as "Dad" and that Taylor is fully involved in her son's day-to-day life, education, and activities. According to the mother, Taylor "[has] been there for every milestone and everything major, 100 percent." The mother further testified that Taylor is "the only father [R.C.J. has] ever known."

In contrast, the mother testified that Johnson has not been involved in her son's life. When the mother first informed Johnson of the pregnancy, he expressed no excitement or interest and indicated that he could not support a child. Their marriage at that point was "on very, very shaky ground," and they separated several months later. During the pregnancy, Johnson provided no financial or other support to the mother, and he spent only one hour with his newborn son on the night of R.C.J.'s birth, then went to a nightclub. Thereafter, he had little interaction with the baby, although R.C.J.'s paternal grandmother sometimes spent time with the child during the day while the mother was at work. The mother eventually discovered that Johnson was involved with drugs, and she filed for divorce.

According to the mother, Johnson never exercised any facet of his joint legal custody over R.C.J., and he did not take the drug tests necessary to obtain unsupervised visitation. Although Johnson paid the mother some child support in the first year after the divorce, he made all payments grudgingly and never met his full monthly support obligation. The mother further testified that Johnson has not helped with R.C.J.'s medical and dental expenses, despite the requirement in the parties' divorce settlement agreement.

At some point in 2000, Johnson moved to Miami, where he lived until January 2002. During that period, the mother received child support payments, but Johnson never paid the full monthly amount or caught up on his support arrearage. Moreover, much of the money arriving from Florida actually came from Johnson's girlfriend, who testified that she sent the mother money because Johnson, who was not working, had none, and she knew the mother needed help.

While Johnson lived in Miami, he did not send R.C.J. any cards, gifts, or letters. On one occasion, the mother traveled with R.C.J. to Florida to see Johnson, but Johnson appeared for the visit several hours late and was drunk. Johnson's family took R.C.J. to Florida for two additional visits, and Johnson testified that he saw R.C.J. at the grandmother's house "a few times" when he was in Georgia. Although Johnson claimed that the mother prevented other visits, the mother testified that she encouraged his participation in R.C.J.'s life at that point.

Johnson's Florida residency ended in early 2002, when he began a five-year federal prison sentence for selling drugs. The mother testified that while incarcerated, Johnson did not write R.C.J., send him any cards, or provide any monetary support for the child. Johnson called the mother occasionally from prison and sometimes inquired about R.C.J., but never asked to speak to his son. It appears, however, that he spoke with R.C.J. several times by telephone when R.C.J. was visiting his paternal grandmother. Johnson also offered evidence that he wrote R.C.J. one letter in 2003, which he sent to the grandmother's house.

The mother admitted that the paternal grandmother sent her several checks for child support in late 2006 and 2007, after the grandmother learned that Taylor planned to petition for adoption, but none were for the full support amount. Prior to those checks, she last received child support from Johnson or his family in January 2002. At the hearing, Johnson did not dispute that he was $36,000 in arrears on his support obligation.

In February 2007, shortly after Johnson's release from prison, Taylor petitioned to adopt R.C.J. pursuant to OCGA § 19-8-6 (a) (1), which governs step-parent adoptions. Generally, the biological parent whose rights will end with the adoption must "voluntarily and in writing surrender[] all of his rights to the child to [the step-parent] for the purpose of enabling [the step-parent] to adopt the child." OCGA § 19-8-6 (a) (1). A voluntary surrender, however, is not always necessary. The step-parent's adoption petition may be granted without the biological parent's consent

if that parent, for a period of one year or longer immediately prior to the filing of the petition for adoption, without justifiable cause, has significantly failed:
(1) To communicate or to make a bona fide attempt to communicate with [the] child in a meaningful, supportive, parental manner; or
(2) To provide for the care and support of [the] child as required by law or judicial decree,
and the court is of the opinion that the adoption is for the best interests of [the] child.
OCGA § 19-8-10 (b).

After hearing extensive evidence, the trial court found that (1) Johnson significantly failed for over one year, without justifiable cause, to communicate or attempt to communicate with R.C.J.; (2) he significantly failed to support the child financially; and (3) adoption by Taylor would be in R.C.J.'s best interest. The court granted Taylor's petition, despite Johnson's refusal to voluntarily surrender his parental rights. We find no error.

1. At the time of the hearing, Johnson had not seen his son in over five years. While incarcerated between 2002 and 2007, he wrote R.C.J. only one letter, which he mailed to the grandmother's house in August 2003, more than three years before the adoption petition was filed. He sent no other cards, letters, or mementos. During this same period, Johnson never asked to speak with his son when he called the mother's house, although he apparently talked with R.C.J. several times by telephone when the child was visiting the grandmother.

On appeal, Johnson argues that the mother "stonewall[ed]" his efforts to keep in touch with his son from prison. The mother, however, directly refuted this claim, asserting that she always accepted his collect calls from prison, that he never sought to speak with R.C.J., and that prior to his incarceration she tried to keep him involved in R.C.J.'s life. Although Johnson offered competing evidence, "[i]t was for the trial court, and not for the appellate court, to assess the credibility of the witnesses and resolve contested factual issues." (Citations omitted.) Davis, supra, 273 Ga. App. at 186.

At best, the record demonstrates infrequent and minimal efforts by Johnson to communicate with his son in a meaningful, supportive, and parental manner throughout the five years immediately preceding the adoption litigation. We recognize that Johnson was in federal prison during this period, and incarceration is often relevant in assessing "justifiable cause" for a failure to support or communicate with a child. Ray v. Denton, 278 Ga. App. 69, 71 (1) 628 SE2d 180) (2006). The trial court, however, "is vested with significant discretion in making the determination as to whether the parent's inaction is excusable." (Citation omitted.) Bateman v. Futch, 232 Ga. App. 271, 273 (1) (501 SE2d 615) (1998). Moreover, incarceration does not establish justification per se; "[e]ach case must be decided on its own circumstances." (Punctuation omitted.) Ray, supra, 278 Ga. App. at 71.

Johnson could have written R.C.J., sent him cards, or telephoned him regularly while in prison, but he did not do so. The record further shows that even before his imprisonment in 2002, Johnson's contact and visits with R.C.J. were sporadic. Under these circumstances, the trial court was authorized to find a lack of significant communication under OCGA § 19-8-10 (b) (2).(fn1) See Bateman, supra, 232 Ga. App. at 273-274 (1); In re J.S.J., 180 Ga. App. 873, 875 (3) (350 SE2d 843) (1986) ("[W]ith regard to support and communication, `sporadic and de minimis' efforts do not require the court to find that there have been significant steps. [Cits.]").

2. Given our decision in Division 1, we need not address whether Johnson significantly failed, without justifiable cause, to support R.C.J. for more than one year. See Sellers, supra, 277 Ga. App. at 816 (because the requirements of OCGA § 19-18-10 (b) (1) and (b) (2) are alternative, we may affirm based on the evidence supporting a finding under one subsection, even if the trial court made findings under both).

3. Finally, the trial court did not err in concluding that adoption by Taylor would be in R.C.J.'s best interest. The superior court has broad discretion in matters of adoption, and its judgment will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion. Bateman, supra, 232 Ga. App. at 274 (2). "If there is any evidence to support the trial court's finding that the adoption is in the child's best interest, such finding will be affirmed." Id.

The evidence shows that R.C.J. views Taylor as his "Dad," and Taylor has been a father figure for the boy since 2001. In this role, Taylor has been intimately involved in R.C.J.'s daily life, participating in his activities, teaching him skills, and generally functioning as a loving, concerned parent. Taylor also testified that he is financially able to take care of R.C.J., and the evidence shows that he has supported the boy for years.

In contrast, Johnson has had very limited contact with R.C.J., provided virtually no financial or parental support during his five-year incarceration, and has generally expressed little interest in supporting or parenting the boy himself. We recognize that R.C.J. has spent time with his paternal grandmother, who clearly wants to remain part of his life. But the mother testified that her son does not have a close relationship with his grandmother, and given the evidence presented, we cannot find that the trial court abused its broad discretion in finding the adoption to be in R.C.J.'s best interest. See Ray, supra, 278 Ga. App. at 72; McCurry v. Harding, 270 Ga. App. 416, 420 (4) (606 SE2d 639) (2004).

Judgment affirmed.

Mikell and Adams, JJ., concur.

Savannah GA Divorce Lawyer
GA Uncontested Divorce - Georgia Contested Divorce
-

We specialize in: Georgia Separation Agreements - Spousal Support - Property Division - Alimony - Military Divorce - Contempt Actions in Divorce Cases, Uncontested Divorce, Savannah Georgia Noncontested divorce - Child Custody Attorney / Custody modification - Child Support Modification - Child Visitation

Savannah GA, Richmond Hill, GA, Fort Stewart, Hinesville, Georgia Family Law Lawyer
| |
Chatham County GA Divorce Lawyer - Savannah Divorce

BUBRICK
v.
THE STATE.

A08A0873.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

September 9, 2008

PHIPPS, Judge.

Chad Michael Bubrick was convicted of committing burglary, with the intent to commit arson, at the home of his ex-wife;(fn1) aggravated stalking of her;(fn2) obstructing two law enforcement officers;(fn3) and hindering a third law enforcement officer.(fn4) On appeal, he contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his burglary conviction, that his character was impermissibly injected in evidence, and that his trial counsel was ineffective. Because Bubrick has shown no reversible error, we affirm.

The state's evidence showed the following.(fn5) On November 22, 2005, Bubrick went into his ex-wife's house without her consent. She called 911, and he left. Bubrick telephoned his ex-wife while the responding police officer was at the scene. The officer advised Bubrick that his ex-wife did not want him there and that, if he returned, he would be arrested for criminal trespass.

A few nights later, on November 24, 2005, Bubrick's ex-wife saw Bubrick in her backyard and went outside to demand that he leave. When he refused, she went inside and called 911. He followed her. Bubrick's ex-wife complained to the responding law enforcement officer that Bubrick was there in violation of a restraining order she had obtained against him. The officer asked Bubrick to place his hands against a wall, but Bubrick replied that he was not going to jail. When the officer grabbed Bubrick's hands, he wrangled free of the officer's grasp, pushed the officer away from him, maneuvered into a fighting stance, and retorted to the officer's warning of being shot by a Taser gun with, "Shoot me." After being so shot, Bubrick ran from the scene.

Within hours, at about 2:00 a.m. on November 25, Bubrick's ex-wife again called 911 because of the sound of a basement window breaking. Two uniformed police officers arrived within five minutes to find Bubrick lying face-down in a basement room between a bed and a wall with a window. Bubrick ignored the officers' several commands to put his hands behind his back. After he stood, his ex-wife saw that he was holding a container of charcoal lighter fluid and several lighters. Bubrick refused to comply with police commands to lie across the bed with his hands outstretched. He yelled repeatedly that he was not going to jail and then charged toward one of the officers. The other officer shot Bubrick with a Taser gun. Bubrick tried to flee, but was caught by one of the officers. Bubrick screamed that he was not going to jail and struggled to free himself from the officer, despite the officer's orders for him to cease fighting. The other officer assisted in the physical struggle to gain control of Bubrick, and although Bubrick was pepper-sprayed and again shot by a Taser gun, he continued to struggle with the officers against their restraint. Bubrick disregarded the officers' commands to cease fighting and lie on the floor, and he continued to yell that he was not going to jail. The officers eventually subdued Bubrick to the extent that he could be handcuffed by a third uniformed law enforcement officer who had arrived as backup. Placed in a patrol car backseat, Bubrick continued to kick the vehicle's doors and windows, notwithstanding police commands to cease doing so.

During the scuffle with Bubrick, the officers discovered in Bubrick's jacket pocket a screwdriver and a container of charcoal lighter fluid. After the scuffle, a second container of charcoal lighter fluid was found on the bedroom floor where Bubrick initially had been discovered. On the night in question, Bubrick's ex-wife did not own any charcoal lighter fluid and did not store lighters in that part of the house.

1. Bubrick challenges his burglary conviction, arguing that there was insufficient evidence that he intended to commit arson inside his ex-wife's residence.

The standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence is set out in Jackson v. Virginia.(fn6) The relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition, appellant no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence. An appellate court determines only the legal sufficiency of the evidence adduced below and does not weigh the evidence or assess the credibility of the witnesses.(fn7)
Bubrick misplaces reliance upon State v. Bryant.(fn8) In that case, the state contested the grant of the defendant's motion for directed verdict on a burglary charge.(fn9) We did not consider the merits of the state's evidentiary challenge, but dismissed the appeal, explaining, "The government cannot appeal such a directed verdict of acquittal, even if it is erroneously granted."(fn10) Here, no grant of a motion for directed verdict is being contested by the state. And the evidence showed that Bubrick broke into his ex-wife's residence at about 2:00 a.m., bringing with him containers of flammable liquid and several lighters. Although, as Bubrick points out, no fire was started, any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Bubrick intended to commit therein the felony of arson.(fn11)

2. Bubrick's contention that the state improperly injected his character in evidence was waived by his trial lawyer's failure to object.(fn12)

3. Bubrick contends that his trial lawyer's failure to object to improper character evidence amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Bubrick complains that two of the state's witnesses - a law enforcement officer and Bubrick's ex-wife - made references before the jury that he had been in jail.

To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel,

a defendant must establish, pursuant to Strickland v. Washington,(fn13) that counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficient performance was prejudicial to his defense. . . . In reviewing a trial court's determination regarding a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, this court upholds the trial court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous; we review a trial court's legal conclusions de novo.(fn14)
We need not address both components of the Strickland test if the showing on one is insufficient; nor must we address the components in any particular order.(fn15)

(a) While the first two officers who responded to the 2:00 a.m. emergency call testified that Bubrick adamantly proclaimed throughout their encounter that he was not going to jail, the third officer who later arrived as backup twice testified that he heard Bubrick scream, "I'm not going back to jail." "Evidence which is relevant to an issue in a case is not rendered inadmissible by the fact that it incidentally puts the defendant's character at issue."(fn16) Here, the words Bubrick repeatedly screamed as he refused to comply with the officers' commands and resisted restraint by them demonstrated his intent to commit the counts of obstruction and hindering underlying this case. Evidence of Bubrick's utterances, therefore, was not rendered inadmissible merely because it incidentally put his character at issue,(fn17) and his trial lawyer's performance was not deficient for not objecting to this officer's recollection of what Bubrick said at the crime scene.(fn18)

(b) Bubrick's ex-wife was asked by the prosecutor about her and Bubrick's living arrangements after their divorce. She answered that she moved to her parents' home, while Bubrick remained at the apartment they had shared when married. She continued, "And when he was arrested, of course, he didn't have any place. When he got out he was [at a different residence]." On cross-examination, Bubrick's ex-wife was asked whether Bubrick had visited her residence after their divorce. She answered that, aside from those occasions in which Bubrick would just "show up" and she would call the police, he came to her residence every other weekend to pick up their child for scheduled visitation. She continued, "After he got out the judge say just visitations every Saturday [at] a public place, McDonald's or where she can play, and just for two hours." On re-direct, Bubrick's ex-wife was asked, "What does McDonald's have to do with the child and visitation?" She answered, ". . . he went to jail, so he got out and just [had] supervised visitations." Pretermitting whether trial counsel committed professional error by failing to object to the challenged testimony, having examined the entirety of the trial transcript, we find no reasonable probability that, but for trial counsel's failure to object to the cited references, the outcome of Bubrick's trial would have been different.(fn19)

Judgment affirmed.

Barnes, C.J., and Johnson, P.J., concur.

Savannah GA Divorce Lawyer
GA Uncontested Divorce - Georgia Contested Divorce
-

We specialize in: Georgia Separation Agreements - Spousal Support - Property Division - Alimony - Military Divorce - Contempt Actions in Divorce Cases, Uncontested Divorce, Savannah Georgia Noncontested divorce - Child Custody Attorney / Custody modification - Child Support Modification - Child Visitation

Savannah GA, Richmond Hill, GA, Fort Stewart, Hinesville, Georgia Family Law Lawyer
| |
WIEPERT et al
v.
STOVER et al.

A09A0197.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

July 2, 2009

BARNES, Judge.

David F. Wiepert and Carol E. Wiepert appeal the temporary order of the trial court awarding custody of D.T. to Marty Dwight Stover and Debra K. Stover. The Stovers are the child's maternal grandmother and step-grandfather, and the Wieperts are the child's great aunt and great step-uncle.

On May 20, 2008, the Stovers filed a petition for custody of D.T. in the Superior Court of Walker County. At that time, a petition for custody filed on April 17, 2007 by the Wieperts was pending in that same court, and a child deprivation petition was apparently pending in the Juvenile Court of Walker County.(fn1)

D.T. was in the custody of the Walker County Department of Family and Children Services ("DFACS"). The record is unclear as to why DFACS took custody of the child, but a hearing on the deprivation petition was scheduled for May 22, 2008. On May 21, apparently in response to a "motion to be divested of custody and dismiss case" filed by DFACS, the juvenile court entered an order continuing the deprivation hearing until June 10, 2008 and reserving a ruling on DFACS's motion pending the outcome of the superior court hearing. The juvenile court acknowledged that "the Superior Court has original jurisdiction in child custody matters and that sometimes cases arise where jurisdiction overlaps. . . . Because the Court is convinced that the Superior Court is quite capable of deciding this custody case correctly and it would be an ineffective use of Walker County funds and time to litigate the issue in two courts."

The trial court entered an ex parte order awarding immediate custody of D. T to the Stovers and set a hearing on the petition for June 3, 2008. The order directed that the Weiperts and other interested parties be served with a copy of the order, and at the hearing "show cause, if any, they have or can, why relief sought should not be granted." The Wieperts filed a motion to intervene arguing that the Stover's petition be denied because the custody issue was already before the court because of their 2007 custody petition, and the court's temporary order awarding them custody. They also argued that res judicata barred the Stover's claim relative to D.T.'s custody. The Wiepart's also filed an answer as intervenors in the case, asserting several defenses including collateral estoppel, estoppel by judgment, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, failure to join necessary parties, res judicata, abatement, and forum non-conviens. Following a hearing, which was not included with the record, the trial court entered a temporary order awarding full custody of D.T. to the Stovers. The order further noted that after hearing from the Weiperts, as intervenors, who were present with counsel, "and evidence having being presented to the Court, and the Court having heard the evidence, the Court hereby finds as a matter of fact and a matter of law that the Superior Court of Walker County has jurisdiction over the matter." The Weiperts appeal from that order.

1. The several enumerations of error the Weiperts contend that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the action based on the principles of collateral estoppel, abatement, and res judicata, and forum non conveniens. We note however, that the record does not reflect that the Weiperts moved to dismiss the action based on any of these doctrines. The record reflects that the Weiperts filed a motion to intervene and an answer as intervenors. The record does not reflect that the trial court granted the motion to intervene, but presumably, it did so, as the custody order noted that the intervenors appeared at the hearing with counsel.

OCGA. § 9-11-12 contains the rules relating to answers, defenses, and how and when defenses are presented and heard. According to subsection (c) of this statute, "after the pleadings are closed but within such time as not to delay the trial, any party may move for judgment on the pleadings." This Court has found no authority, and [the Weiperts] cite[] no authority, indicating the trial court has authority to treat an allegation or statement in an answer as a motion to dismiss the case.
Howell v. Styles, 221 Ga. App. 781, 782 (1) (472 SE2d 548) (1996).

Pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-7 (b) (1), "[a]n application to the court for an order shall be by motion which, unless made during a hearing or trial, shall be made in writing, shall state with particularity the grounds therefor, and shall set forth the relief or order sought."

To the extent that these arguments were presented at the hearing, the absence of a transcript prevents us from reviewing whether the issues were raised and properly rejected by the trial court. In the absence of a trial transcript, we must assume the correctness of the trial court's rulings. Hosseini v. Donino, 222 Ga. App. 697 (1) (475 SE2d 665) (1996).

2. The Weiperts also maintain that the trial court erred by failing to join necessary parties. "Where it is claimed that the plaintiff has failed to join an indispensable party, the issue must be raised by motion to dismiss filed pursuant to OCGA. § 9-11-19. . . . Otherwise, such defenses are deemed waived. [Cit.]" Klorer-Willhardt, Inc. v. Martz, 166 Ga. App. 446, 447 (1) (304 SE2d 442) (1983). The record fails to reveal that this issue was properly presented to the trial court, and the absence of a transcript further precludes our reviewing this issue.

3. The Weiperts argue that the trail court erred in exercising subject matter jurisdiction at a time when the juvenile court had exclusive original jurisdiction.

Under OCGA § 15-11-5 (c), `(w)here custody is the subject of controversy, except in those cases where the law gives the superior courts exclusive jurisdiction, in consideration of these cases the juvenile court shall have concurrent jurisdiction to hear and determine the issue of custody and support when the issue is transferred by proper order of the superior court.' [Emphasis supplied.] There was no order of the superior court transferring the petition to the juvenile court here, and the jurisdiction obtained during the [original deprivation proceeding] could not serve to retain such jurisdiction. [A]fter a court has determined who is to be the legal custodian of a child, [a complaint by the legal custodian seeking a change of legal custody or visitation rights shall be brought as a separate action] in compliance with Article VI, Section XIV, Paragraph VI of the Constitution of this state.' [Emphasis supplied.] (Indention omitted.) OCGA § 19-9-23 (a) and (b)." Owen v. Owen, 183 Ga. App. 472, 473 (359 SE2d 229) (1987). Consequently, we find no merit to the [Weiperts] argument that the juvenile court retained jurisdiction . . . because [D.T.] had previously been adjudicated deprived. Although it is true that the juvenile court has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain petitions concerning children alleged to be deprived (see OCGA § 15-11-5 (a) (1) (C)), the record here shows that the [Stovers] complaint for permanent custody was not in the nature of a deprivation petition and did not allege that they should be granted permanent custody of [D.T.] on the basis that the [child was] deprived.
Accordingly, as subject matter jurisdiction in this custody matter was properly in superior court, this enumeration is meritless.

Judgment affirmed.

Miller, C.J., and Andrews, P.J., concur.Savannah GA Divorce Lawyer
GA Uncontested Divorce - Georgia Contested Divorce
-

We specialize in: Georgia Separation Agreements - Spousal Support - Property Division - Alimony - Military Divorce - Contempt Actions in Divorce Cases, Uncontested Divorce, Savannah Georgia Noncontested divorce - Child Custody Attorney / Custody modification - Child Support Modification - Child Visitation

Savannah GA, Richmond Hill, GA, Fort Stewart, Hinesville, Georgia Family Law Lawyer
| |
Savannah GA Divorce Lawyer - Savannah Georgia Child Custody Attorney
A definition for Child Custody and Support.
There are two kinds of custody: legal custody and physical custody. Custody battles most often arise in a divorce or separation, requiring a court's determination of which parent, relative or other adult should have physical and/or legal control and responsibility for a minor (child) under 18. When both parents share custody of a child after a divorce it is called joint custody. Joint custody may be either legal or physical custody. Physical custody designates where the child will actually live, whereas legal custody gives the custodial person(s) the right to make decisions for the child's welfare. Child custody can be decided by a local court in a divorce or if a child, relative, close friend or state agency questions whether one or both parents is unfit, absent, dead, in prison or dangerous to the child's well-being. In such cases custody can be awarded to a grandparent or other relative, a foster parent or an orphanage or other organization or institution. In some jurisdictions, if a child is old enough, their preferences are taken into consideration.

The basic consideration on custody matters is supposed to be the best interests of the child or children. Mental anguish suffered by the child due to visitation or lack thereof is one factor that may be considered in determining a child's best interest. In most cases the non-custodial parent is given visitation rights, which may include weekends, parts of vacations and other occasions. The custody order may be modifed if circumstances warrant. Such circumstances vary in each case, but may include loss of employment, disability, or extraordinary medical bills.

Courts may require the parents to consult with each other prior to any major decisions being made. Disagreements between the parties may be resolved by the parties going to mediation, returning to court, or by one parent having "final decision-making power". This decision-making authority may be broadly stated or limited, such as in emergencies, or be specifically related to certain areas of the child's life.

Child support is a court-ordered payment by one parent to the custodial parent of a minor child after divorce (dissolution) or separation. Usually the amount of support is based on the income of both parents, the number of children, the expenses of the custodial parent, and any special needs of the child. In many states or locales the amount is determined by a chart which factors in all these figures. It may also include health plan coverage, school tuition or other expenses, and may be reduced during periods of extended visitation such as summer vacations. Child care expenses (resulting from employment), medical, and educational expenses will usually be pro-rated in proportion to the parent's income. Generally, child support payments are for the ordinary expenses of food, shelter, clothing, education and medication needs for the children only. Child support generally continues until the child reaches 18 years, graduates from high school, is emancipated (no longer lives with either parent), or, in some cases, continues after the child reaches 18, such as duiring college attendance. Some states have child support guidelines for determining what expenses are included and in what amount.

The award of child support may be modified by the court upon petition of either party if a change of circumstance of the parents or child is proven. Child support is separate from alimony (spousal support) which is for the ex-spouse's support. Child support is not deductible from gross income for tax purposes nor is it taxed as income, unlike alimony, which is deductible by the payer and taxed as the adult recipient's income.

Child support and visitation are independent obligations. You can’t stop paying support if visitation is denied, and you can’t deny visitation for nonpayment of child support. A person who denies ordered visitation or fails to pay ordered child support can be held in contempt of court and states have various remedies, which vary by state, for pursuing claims against parents who owe back child support. Such remedies may include driver's license suspension, wage garnishment, and attaching unemployment compensation, worker's compensation, and federal tax refunds, among others. Local law should be consulted for specific requirements in your area.

The Child Support Enforcement (CSE) Program is a Federal/State/local partnership to collect child support: we want to send the strongest possible message that parents cannot walk away from their children. Our goals are to ensure that children have the financial support of both their parents, to foster responsible behavior towards children, and to reduce welfare costs.

The CSE Program was established in 1975 as Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. It functions in all States and territories, through the State/county Social Services Department, Attorney General's Office or Department of Revenue. Most States work with prosecuting attorneys, other law enforcement agencies, and officials of family or domestic relations courts to carry out the program at the local level.

State Child Support Programs locate noncustodial parents, establish paternity, establish and enforce support orders, and collect child support payments. While programs vary from state to state, their services are available to all parents who need them.

If the Child Support Enforcement Program cannot locate the noncustodial parent with the information provided by the custodial parent, it must try to locate the noncustodial parent through the state parent locator service. The state uses various information sources such as telephone directories, motor vehicle registries, tax files, and employment and unemployment records. The state also can ask to locate the noncustodial parent. Data from the Social Security Administration, the IRS, the Selective Service System, the Department of Defense, the Veterans Administration, the National Personnel Records Center, and State Employment Security Agencies can then be collected.
Savannah GA Divorce Lawyer
GA Uncontested Divorce - Georgia Contested Divorce
-

We specialize in: Georgia Separation Agreements - Spousal Support - Property Division - Alimony - Military Divorce - Contempt Actions in Divorce Cases, Uncontested Divorce, Savannah Georgia Noncontested divorce - Child Custody Attorney / Custody modification - Child Support Modification - Child Visitation

Savannah GA, Richmond Hill, GA, Fort Stewart, Hinesville, Georgia Family Law Lawyer
| |
FARRAR
v.
MACIE et al.

A09A0103.
Court of Appeals of Georgia

March 30, 2009

ADAMS, Judge.

Psychologist John Edward Farrar sued attorney James J. Macie, Macie's wife, Mary Ann Macie, and Macie's paralegal, Marsha Dryden, seeking damages arising out of the alleged tortious interference by the defendants with Farrar's business relations, contracts, trade and profession. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and Farrar appeals. We affirm because Macie is immune from civil liability for his communication to the State Board of Examiners of Psychologists ("State Board") and because the defendants showed a lack of evidence as to Farrar's claim that they distributed a flyer which harmed Farrar's business.

To prevail at summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c). A defendant may do this by showing the court that the documents, affidavits, depositions and other evidence in the record reveal that there is no evidence sufficient to create a jury issue on at least one essential element of plaintiff's case.
(Emphasis omitted.) Lau's Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 (405 SE2d 474) (1991). We review an appeal from a grant of summary judgment de novo, and we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. See Costrini v. Hansen Architects, P.C., 247 Ga. App. 136 (543 SE2d 760) (2000).

So viewed, the evidence shows that Macie often encountered Farrar as a testifying expert in child custody cases. On December 15, 2000, Macie wrote to the State Board concerning three cases in which Farrar had given testimony. Dryden typed the letter, but neither Dryden nor Mary Ann Macie were involved in composing the correspondence. The State Board investigated Farrar and issued a final decision on October 16, 2003. The State Board found Farrar had violated its rules and ordered that he suspend all testimony in custody and certain other cases for a minimum of one year beginning November 1, 2003.(fn1) Farrar filed this action on November 16, 2006, seeking damages arising out of Macie's filing of complaints with the State Board and the alleged dissemination of a publication by the defendants in February of 2003.

1. Although not separately enumerated as error, Farrar complains that the trial court referred to depositions that were not on file at the time of the trial court's order. In their motion for summary judgment, defendants referred to numerous exhibits, including transcripts of Farrar's deposition. As supplemented, the record shows that these exhibits, including copies of the deposition transcripts, were filed with the trial court. The trial court was entitled to rely thereon. See Village Auto Ins. Co. v. Rush, 286 Ga. App. 688, 693 (5) (649 SE2d 862) (2007); Jacobsen v. Muller, 181 Ga. App. 382, 383 (3) (352 SE2d 604) (1986).

2. Farrar claims that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to defendants on his claim supported by the affidavit of Marcus L. Pittman, Jr. We disagree.

Farrar contends that in February of 2003, the defendants distributed anonymous flyers in the community alleging that Farrar was subject to prosecution by the Attorney General of the State of Georgia. In support of their motion for summary judgment, defendants averred that they did not author, publish, or distribute such a document. In opposition to the defendants' motion for summary judgment, Farrar filed Pittman's affidavit.

Pittman, a "forensic questioned document examiner," averred, based on certain documents provided to him, that Dryden and Mary Ann Macie authored certain other documents or "flyers" provided to him. However, these various documents, specifically exhibits "B" through "E," were not attached to the affidavit filed with the trial court, and the trial court found the affidavit to be insufficient. Without the attachments, Pittman's affidavit did not show either what Dryden and Mary Ann Macie had purportedly authored or what Pittman relied upon to come to that conclusion. Furthermore, for purposes of affidavits supporting or opposing summary judgment, "[s]worn or certified copies of all papers or parts thereof referred to in an affidavit shall be attached thereto or served therewith." OCGA § 9-11-56 (e). The trial court correctly refused to consider Pittman's affidavit. See Mingledolph v. University Emergency Physicians, P.C., 174 Ga. App. 75, 75-76 (329 SE2d 222) (1985); Gunnin v. Swat, Inc., 195 Ga. App. 344, 345 (393 SE2d 700) (1990).

In view of the foregoing, Farrar presented no admissible evidence connecting the defendants with the anonymous flyers. As to Dryden and Marie Ann Macie, who did not file the complaint with the Board, Farrar's failure to connect them with the flyers entitled them to summary judgment on all of Farrar's claims.(fn2)

3. The trial court found that Farrar could not recover for Macie's alleged action in reporting Farrar to the State Board because Macie's statements were privileged.(fn3) Farrar contends that the trial court erred because its finding was not supported by undisputed facts. We disagree.

The State Board is responsible for issuing licenses to practice psychology. See OCGA § 43-39-1 et seq. OCGA § 43-1-19 (a) provides that a professional licensing board may refuse to grant a license, revoke a license, or discipline a licensee if, among other things, the applicant or licensee "[e]ngaged in any unprofessional, immoral, unethical, deceptive, or deleterious conduct or practice harmful to the public, which conduct or practice materially affects the fitness of the licensee or applicant to practice a business or profession licensed under this title." OCGA § 43-1-19 (a) (6). OCGA § 43-1-19 (i) provides that a person is immune from civil or criminal liability

for reporting or investigating the acts or omissions of a licensee or applicant which violate the provisions of subsection (a) of this Code section . . . if such report is made or action is taken in good faith, without fraud or malice.
Macie's complaint to the State Board alleged that Farrar had engaged in conduct which violated several ethical standards and guidelines of the American Psychological Association. For purposes of OCGA § 43-1-19 (a) (6), unprofessional conduct subject to discipline includes "any departure from, or the failure to conform to, the minimal reasonable standards of acceptable and prevailing practice of the business or profession licensed under this title." Pretermitting whether Macie's actions may also be privileged on other grounds, in light of OCGA § 43-1-19 (i), Macie was immune from civil liability for reporting Farrar's alleged unethical and unprofessional conduct to the State Board so long as Macie's report was made "in good faith, without fraud or malice." See generally Bell v. Sasser, 238 Ga. App. 843, 853 (3) (520 SE2d 287) (1999) ("the undertaking of a legally privileged act . . . cannot support a tortious interference claim").

Macie averred that he filed the report because "I became concerned that Dr. Farrar often made custody recommendations without a proper evaluation of both parents, the children, and relevant witnesses." The affidavit further shows that Macie spoke to psychologists and read the American Psychological Association Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations in Divorce Proceedings, and became "worried that Dr. Farrar's custody recommendations violated the APA Guidelines and were improper, to the detriment of the children involved in cases in which he testified."

Macie's sworn testimony evidences his good faith in filing the complaint with the State Board. See Smith v. Henry, 276 Ga. App. 831, 832 (625 SE2d 93) (2005) (defendant's affidavit showing the basis for his comments at a Board of Commissioner's meeting established his good faith). "In such posture [Farrar] cannot rest upon his allegations or denials but is cast with the burden [of] showing there was a genuine issue for trial." Cohen v. Hartlage, 179 Ga. App. 847, 849 (348 SE2d 331) (1986). Farrar does not argue that anything in the record either shows or reasonably infers that Macie did not act in good faith in communicating with the State Board. It follows that summary judgment was properly granted to Macie on all claims arising from that communication. See Brewer v. Schacht, 235 Ga. App. 313, 317-318 (4) (b) (509 SE2d 378) (1998); Sparks v. Parks, 172 Ga. App. 823, 826-827 (2) (324 SE2d 784) (1984).

4. Farrar also contends that the trial court erred in finding that his claims against Macie were barred by the statute of limitations and that there were no justiciable issues of law or fact with respect to his claim for tortious interference with contract. In view of our findings in Divisions 2 and 3, these claims of error are moot.

Judgment affirmed.

Blackburn, P.J., and Doyle, J., concur.Savannah GA Divorce Lawyer
GA Uncontested Divorce - Georgia Contested Divorce
-

We specialize in: Georgia Separation Agreements - Spousal Support - Property Division - Alimony - Military Divorce - Contempt Actions in Divorce Cases, Uncontested Divorce, Savannah Georgia Noncontested divorce - Child Custody Attorney / Custody modification - Child Support Modification - Child Visitation

Savannah GA, Richmond Hill, GA, Fort Stewart, Hinesville, Georgia Family Law Lawyer
| |
A definition for Bifurcated Divorce in Georgia

A bifurcated divorce is one in which the marriage between spouses is terminated, but other issues, such as the division of property, alimony, child support or custody arrangements, are left to be determined at a later date or at trial. It is often used when one of the spouses wishes to remarry, but resolve other issues in the future. It is also referred to as a divisible divorce.

Savannah GA Divorce Lawyer
GA Uncontested Divorce - Georgia Contested Divorce
-

We specialize in: Georgia Separation Agreements - Spousal Support - Property Division - Alimony - Military Divorce - Contempt Actions in Divorce Cases, Uncontested Divorce, Savannah Georgia Noncontested divorce - Child Custody Attorney / Custody modification - Child Support Modification - Child Visitation

Savannah GA, Richmond Hill, GA, Fort Stewart, Hinesville, Georgia Family Law Lawyer
| |
A definition for Bed and Board Divorce in Georgia

A bed and board divorce means that the husband and wife are officially separated and neither can marry another person. It is a qualified or partial divorce based upon fault, usually desertion or cruelty, as defined by state laws, which vary by state. It is sometimes brought by an injured spouse to get the court to order the other spouse out of the residence.

Savannah GA Divorce Lawyer
GA Uncontested Divorce - Georgia Contested Divorce
-

We specialize in: Georgia Separation Agreements - Spousal Support - Property Division - Alimony - Military Divorce - Contempt Actions in Divorce Cases, Uncontested Divorce, Savannah Georgia Noncontested divorce - Child Custody Attorney / Custody modification - Child Support Modification - Child Visitation

Savannah GA, Richmond Hill, GA, Fort Stewart, Hinesville, Georgia Family Law Lawyer
| |
A definition for Adversarial Divorce in Georgia
In adversarial divorces, the parties are adversarial and unable to agree on the terms of divorce. Common areas of disagreement include, but are not limited to: grounds for divorce, custody of the children, visitation rights, division of the assets of the marriage, child support, maintenance (alimony), payment of family debts, contribution toward educational expenses (college or parochial), payment of health insurance for the dependent spouse, income tax structuring, etc. It is also referred to as a contested divorce.

Savannah GA Divorce Lawyer
GA Uncontested Divorce - Georgia Contested Divorce
-

We specialize in: Georgia Separation Agreements - Spousal Support - Property Division - Alimony - Military Divorce - Contempt Actions in Divorce Cases, Uncontested Divorce, Savannah Georgia Noncontested divorce - Child Custody Attorney / Custody modification - Child Support Modification - Child Visitation

Savannah GA, Richmond Hill, GA, Fort Stewart, Hinesville, Georgia Family Law Lawyer
| |
Husband files for divorce after wife tries to have him killed


August 10, 2009 2:25 PM

Michael Dippolito officially filed for divorce after his wife, Dalia, was arrested for trying to have him killed. The court documents were filed Friday. The documents say the marriage is "irretrievably broken" and says the fact that Dalia allegedly tried to hire a hitman to have him killed shows that the marriage is over.

Also, one day before the hit was to supposed to go down last week, Mike Dippolito put the couple's townhome in his wife's name, giving her exclusive ownership of the property.

A lawsuit has also been filed in Palm Beach County Circuit Court, asking a judge to throw out a deed that gives Dalia Dippolito the couple's townhome and to restore the ownership to her husband Michael.

The lawsuit says Dalia never really loved her husband, and married him last February only because she wanted to get her hands on his $232,000 townhouse in Boynton Beach's Renaissance Commons.

The lawsuit says quote: "She did not love the Plaintiff and only married him to unlawfully obtain his property. She knew she wanted the Plaintiff dead and her representations of love and devotion were false at the time they were made... The sole purpose for the marriage was to convert all of his property to her own use."

Police say Dalia Dippolito tried to hire a hitman to kill her husband Michael. Little did she know, the person she tried to hire turned out to be an undercover police officer.

"I think it's pretty sad. It really is pretty sad you know when you think about it. But I think there's a lot more behind it that nobody knows about," said Jack Lynch, the couple's neighbor.

Dalia Dippolito is charged with solicitation to commit first degree murder.

She bonded out of jail Thursday and is now confined to her mother's house.

"I didn't do anything and I didn't plot anything! What was that? I didn't do anything and I didn't plot anything!" Dalia told reporters as police placed her in a squad car Wednesday following her arrest.

Now Michael Dippolito's ex-wife Maria is speaking out.

She says she has known Michael for over 10 years, and she calls him a "good guy."

In a written statement Maria says quote: "I am sorry to see what he is going through. It is unfortunate that someone would do this to another human being. We had a good marriage and he always made me happy and feel deserved. Our divorce was the result of differences that could not be worked out. He was a great husband..."

Maria still lives in south Florida and works in the medical field. She and Michael were married for about two years, and did not have any children together.

They got divorced in January.

We also have just learned who tipped the police off about the bizarre murder for hire plot.

According to the lawsuit filed by Michael Dippolito in which he seeks to regain ownership of the townhouse, Dalia Dippolito's boyfriend is the one who went to police. He's the one who blew the whistle.

According to the lawsuit, last month Dalia had convinced her husband Michael to sign a deed that would give her sole ownership of their quarter-million dollar townhome in Renaissance Commons in Boynton Beach.

That was on July 31. Less than a week later she was arrested when police say she tried to hire a hitman to kill him.

The lawsuit reveals that although Dalia and Michael had only been married for a few months she was already seeing another guy.

And it turns out that this boyfriend went to police and tipped them about the murder for hire plot.

The lawsuit says quote: "...she advised this man she wanted her husband killed. This person reported the conversation to the proper authorities."

Boynton Beach Police won't confirm that Dalia's boyfriend was the tipster.

A police spokeswoman says they don't comment on the identity of confidential informants who provide information to police.

Dalia Dippolito is charged with solicitation to commit murder, a charge that carries up to 30 years in prison.
Savannah GA Divorce Lawyer
Savannah GA Uncontested Divorce - Georgia Contested Divorce
-

We specialize in: Georgia Separation Agreements - Spousal Support - Property Division - Alimony - Military Divorce - Contempt Actions in Divorce Cases, Uncontested Divorce, Savannah Georgia Noncontested divorce - Child Custody Attorney / Custody modification - Child Support Modification - Child Visitation

Savannah GA, Richmond Hill, GA, Fort Stewart, Hinesville, Georgia Family Law Lawyer
| |
2009-GA-0630.108

Savannah GA Divorce Lawyer - Uncontested Divorce Attorney - PASLAY v. STATE

PASLAY v. STATE
PASLAY
v.
STATE

S09A0521.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

June 29, 2009

HUNSTEIN, Presiding Justice.

Appellant Todd Russell Paslay was convicted of malice murder, felony murder, two counts of cruelty to children in the third degree, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime in connection with the shooting death of his wife, Elizabeth Paslay. He appeals from the denial of his motion for new trial(fn1) and, finding no error, we affirm.

1. The evidence authorized the jury to find that Paslay and the victim had marital difficulties stemming primarily from ongoing custody and child support

2

disputes with Paslay's ex-wife. On the evening of the crimes, the telephone rang once at the out-of-state home of Harold Brooks, the victim's father, and the call was identified as originating from the victim's cell phone. Brooks had his son return the call twice; the line engaged each time, but all that could be heard were noises, including gasping, gurgling and children screaming during the second call, before the line was disconnected. Brooks called the Richmond County Sheriff's Department, and units were dispatched to the Paslay residence. There, officers found the victim lying on the kitchen floor with a cell phone in her hand, dead from a single gunshot wound to the head. Paslay's father arrived at the residence and informed officers that Paslay and his two children were at the father's house in Burke County. Paslay was taken into custody there, and a handgun retrieved on the premises was later determined to have fired the bullet that killed the victim. At trial, recordings of Paslay's two interviews with law enforcement were played for the jury. Paslay testified that he and the victim were arguing inside the home over his ex-wife's failure to pick the children up for visitation; that the argument became physical; that he took the children, his wallet and his gun out to his truck; that he returned to the house; and that he did not know what happened after that.

3

Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find Paslay guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

2. Paslay contends that the trial court erred by excluding the testimony of one expert witness and one lay witness regarding his abuse by the victim.(fn2) At trial, defense counsel made clear that there was no issue regarding Paslay's competence to stand trial and that Paslay was not raising an insanity or mental illness defense.(fn3) The stated purpose of the testimony was to put the remainder of the evidence in perspective by showing that Paslay was undergoing emotional and physical turmoil at the time of the crimes. On appeal, Paslay argues that he was not claiming to have acted in self-defense.(fn4) Rather, he was attempting to

4

mitigate the element of intent, i.e., he was pursuing a verdict of voluntary manslaughter.(fn5)

[W]ith regard to voluntary manslaughter, "the question is whether the defendant acted out of passion resulting from provocation sufficient to excite such passion in a reasonable person. It is of no moment whether the provocation was sufficient to excite the deadly passion in the particular defendant."
(Footnote omitted.) Beck v. State, 272 Ga. 863, 865 (2) (535 SE2d 756) (2000). Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not err by excluding the testimony in question.

3. Paslay also claims that the trial court violated OCGA § 17-8-57 by expressing or intimating an opinion as to what had been proven or as to his guilt.

The State objected several times on relevance and hearsay grounds to defense counsel's questioning of attorney Smith, see n. 2, supra, regarding Paslay's divorce. Ultimately, the trial court interrupted defense counsel, making the following comments prior to dismissing the jury:

What's the purpose of all this, [defense counsel]? This doesn't have anything to do with this case does it? . . . Well, how? I mean all this is very interesting about he had problems with his former wife and they had a divorce and they had children and . . . she didn't pay support. But we're talking about a murder case here involving another person.
5

The rule set forth in OCGA § 17-8-57 "`"does not generally extend to colloquies between the judge and counsel regarding the admissibility of evidence. (Cits.)" (Cit.)' [Cit.]" Rowe v. State, 266 Ga. 136, 139 (2) (464 SE2d 811) (1996), overruled on other grounds by Paul v. State, 272 Ga. 845 (3) (537 SE2d 58) (2000). See also Creed v. State, 255 Ga. App. 425 (1) (565 SE2d 480) (2002) (no OCGA § 17-8-57 violation where trial court inquired as to direction defense counsel was going with particular line of questioning and encouraged counsel to move forward). Because the trial court's comments concerned the relevance of the testimony at issue and did not constitute an opinion as to what had been proven or whether Paslay was guilty, we find no error.

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.

_____________________
Footnotes:

FN1. The crimes occurred on August 20, 2004. Paslay was indicted in Richmond County on November 2, 2004 and charged with malice murder, felony murder based on aggravated assault, two counts of misdemeanor cruelty to children in the third degree, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. Following a jury trial held May 8-10, 2006, Paslay was found guilty on all counts. On May 26, 2006, the trial court sentenced Paslay to life imprisonment for malice murder, with a concurrent 12-month term for each cruelty to children conviction and a consecutive five year term for firearm possession; the felony murder conviction was vacated by operation of law. See Malcolm v. State, 263 Ga. 369 (4) (434 SE2d 479) (1993). Paslay's motion for new trial was filed on June 15, 2006, amended on August 20, 2008, and denied on November 5, 2008; his notice of appeal was timely filed. The appeal was docketed in this Court on December 18, 2008 and submitted for decision on the briefs.

FN2. Paslay sought to introduce the testimony of (1) Dr. Marti Loring, a licensed clinical social worker who assessed Paslay and found that he experienced battered person syndrome prior to and during his relationship with the victim; and (2) Beth Ann Smith, the attorney who represented Paslay during his divorce and subsequent contempt action against his ex-wife.

FN3. See Paul v. State, 274 Ga. 601 (2) (555 SE2d 716) (2001) (expert evidence of mental impairment inadmissible in light of defendant's refusal to assert mental illness or insanity defense).

FN4. See Smith v. State, 268 Ga. 196, 199 (486 SE2d 819) (1997) (battered person syndrome is not separate defense, but component of justifiable homicide by self-defense).

FN5. The trial court did charge the jury on the crime of voluntary manslaughter.

GA

Slip Opinions
Savannah GA Divorce Lawyer
GA Uncontested Divorce - Georgia Contested Divorce
-

We specialize in: Georgia Separation Agreements - Spousal Support - Property Division - Alimony - Military Divorce - Contempt Actions in Divorce Cases, Uncontested Divorce, Savannah Georgia Noncontested divorce - Child Custody Attorney / Custody modification - Child Support Modification - Child Visitation

Savannah GA, Richmond Hill, GA, Fort Stewart, Hinesville, Georgia Family Law Lawyer
| |
2009-GA-0713.136

Savannah GA Divorce Lawyer - Savannah Georgia Uncontested Divorce Attorney (Beard v. Beard)

WALTON v. WALTON
WALTON
v.
WALTON

S09F0303.
Supreme Court of Georgia.

June 29, 2009

MELTON, Justice.

Following a bench trial, Willie C. Walton ("Husband") and Aileen Walton ("Wife") were divorced pursuant to a Final Judgment and Decree of Divorce entered on March 27, 2008. After considering the income and other circumstances of both Husband and Wife, the trial court ordered Husband to pay child support in the amount of $1,800 per month (the presumptive amount), and awarded wife three years of periodic alimony. The trial court awarded Husband the marital residence and lot, and ordered him to pay $319,000 to Wife for her equity in the home by May 31, 2008. The trial court also awarded Wife one of Husband's businesses (the Alliance Financial Group), and ordered Husband to pay off the debt that had been used to finance the business. Finally, in a separate July 2, 2008 order, the trial court awarded Wife attorney fees of $50,000. We granted Husband's application for discretionary appeal in this divorce case pursuant to this Court's Family Law Pilot Project, under which this Court will

2

grant all non-frivolous discretionary applications seeking review of a final decree of divorce. Maddox v. Maddox, 278 Ga. 606 (604 SE2d 784) (2004). Husband contends that the trial court erred by failing to properly consider evidence relating to his nonmarital contribution to the purchase of the marital home and his interest in the home; erred in its consideration of the evidence relating to the awards of child support and alimony; and erred in its award of attorney fees to Wife. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

1. Husband contends that the trial court did not properly determine his interest in the marital home, because the court failed to give him credit for his nonmarital contribution to the purchase of the marital home. See Hubby v. Hubby, 274 Ga. 525 (556 SE2d 127) (2001) ("In applying the `source of the funds' rule to the equitable division of a home which was brought to a marriage, the trial court must determine the contribution of the spouse who brought the home to the marriage, and weigh it against the total nonmarital and marital investment in the property") (citations and punctuation omitted). However, evidence supported the trial court's conclusion that Husband did not use his own personal funds to make the down payment on the home. Specifically, the evidence showed that the down payment on the home was made with funds from

3

Husband and Wife's joint account, and from funds shared by Husband and Wife that Husband had transferred into his own personal account. The transfer of the couple's funds to Husband's account did not make the funds Husband's separate property. Because evidence supported the trial court's conclusion that Husband did not make a nonmarital contribution to the purchase of the marital home, that determination will not be disturbed here.(fn1) Southerland v. Southerland, 278 Ga. 188 (1) (598 SE2d 442) (2004).

In this regard, contrary to Husband's claims, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant Husband more than fifty percent of the equity in the marital residence. Indeed,

an equitable division of marital property does not necessarily mean an equal division. The purpose behind the doctrine of equitable division of marital property is to assure that property accumulated during the marriage be fairly distributed between the parties. Each spouse is entitled to an allocation of the marital property based upon his or her respective equitable interest therein. Thus, an award is not erroneous simply because one party receives a seemingly greater share of the marital property.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Wright v. Wright, 277 Ga. 133, 134 (2) (587 SE2d 600) (2003).

4

2. Husband contends that the trial court erred in its factual findings used to support its awards for child support and alimony. Specifically, Husband claims that the trial court erred in finding that his income was $15,708 per month for purposes of calculating child support, and erred in failing to consider any alimony award as a deviation from the presumptive amount of child support. See OCGA § 19-6-1 (b) (child support calculated based on determination of adjusted monthly gross income of both the custodial parent and the noncustodial parent); OCGA § 19-6-1 (c) (alimony awarded in accordance with needs of the party and ability of other party to pay); OCGA § 19-6-15 (i) (requirements for deviation from presumptive amount of child support). However, "this court will not set aside the trial court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous, and this Court properly gives due deference to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Frazier v. Frazier, 280 Ga. 687, 690 (4) (631 SE2d 666) (2006).

Here, the trial court considered the many personal expenses of Husband that were paid for by his companies -- including two Mercedes Benz lease payments and entertainment and travel expenses. The court also considered a loan application on which Husband had listed his monthly income as $68,750

5

per month, as well as Husband's own domestic relations financial affidavit in which Husband claimed that his income was $15,708 per month. Additionally, the court took into account Wife's status as a stay-at-home mother since the birth of the parties' son, Husband's conduct towards Wife, and Wife's potential income from the court's award to her of one of Husband's companies. The evidence supported the trial court's child support and alimony awards to Wife, and supported its conclusion that no deviation from the presumptive amount of child support was warranted. See OCGA § 19-6-15 (b); OCGA § 19-6-1 (c); OCGA § 19-6-15 (i).

3. An award of attorney fees as part of the expenses of litigation is left to "the sound discretion of the trial court, except that the court shall consider the financial circumstances of both parties as a part of its determination of the amount of attorney's fees, if any, to be allowed against either party." OCGA § 19-6-2 (a) (1). "The purpose of allowing attorney fees is to ensure effective representation of both spouses so that all issues can be fully and fairly resolved." (Citation omitted.) Johnson v. Johnson, 260 Ga. 443, 444 (396 SE2d 234) (1990). Here, as noted in Division 2, supra, the trial court considered evidence of the financial circumstances of the parties. Further, the court considered

6

evidence that Wife incurred over $75,000 in litigation expenses in her efforts to obtain necessary financial documents and to effectively present the complicated financial issues raised in the case. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's award of $50,000 in attorney's fees to Wife. Rieffel v. Rieffel, 281 Ga. 891 (1) (644 SE2d 140) (2007).

Judgment affirmed.

Hunstein, C.J., Carley, P.J., Benham, Thompson and Hines, JJ., concur.

_____________________
Footnotes:

FN1. We note that evidence also supported the trial court's conclusion regarding the value of the marital home.

GA

Slip Opinions

Savannah GA Divorce Lawyer
GA Uncontested Divorce - Georgia Contested Divorce
-

We specialize in: Georgia Separation Agreements - Spousal Support - Property Division - Alimony - Military Divorce - Contempt Actions in Divorce Cases, Uncontested Divorce, Savannah Georgia Noncontested divorce - Child Custody Attorney / Custody modification - Child Support Modification - Child Visitation

Savannah GA, Richmond Hill, GA, Fort Stewart, Hinesville, Georgia Family Law Lawyer
| |

Divorce Lawyer Savannah

Fill out this form to contact a Savannah GA Divorce Lawyer

Please complete this form to have a Savannah GA family attorney contact you.
Name:
Email:
Phone:
Briefly Describe Your Situation:


All information will be kept confidential.

Nye & Siamos - Savannah GA Divorce and family lawyers

The Law Office of Nye & Siamos
114 Barnard Street, Suite 2C
Savannah, Georgia 31401

912-544-0244


Our Savannah divorce and family law firm is located in Savannah, Georgia. Our Georgia family lawyers offer compassionate, aggressive representation in divorce, military divorce, uncontested divorce, child custody, child visitation, child support and other GA family law cases.

We are based in Savannah Georgia and handle cases throughout Coastal Georgia, to include: Savannah, Brunswick, Statesboro, Hinesville, Richmond Hill, Tybee Island, Chatham County, Effingham County, Liberty County, Fort Stewart, and Hunter Army Airfield.

Legal Blog List