Diggs v. Diggs

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Diggs v. Diggs

279 S.E.2d 727, 158 Ga. App. 277, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 2160

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 9, 1981

Docket61609

StatusPublished

This text of 279 S.E.2d 727 (Diggs v. Diggs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Diggs v. Diggs, 279 S.E.2d 727, 158 Ga. App. 277, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 2160 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Quillian, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal by the mother from an award of the parties’ minor children to the father. We granted an application for discretionary review in order to consider the principal issue as to whether the trial judge properly utilized a psychological evaluation of the parents and a summary prepared by the Department of Family and Children’s Services in order to determine custody, while denying the mother access to this information. Held:

On similar facts, the Supreme Court has pronounced the legal maxim: “ ‘... It is error... for the issue of child custody to be decided on the basis of [a report of the juvenile court] where either parent is denied access to the report and is thereby denied a hearing and the right to examine witnesses in an effort to refute the report.’ That rule of fundamental fairness applies with equal force to reports such as that of the Department of Family & Children Services at issue here. Therefore, in the absence of waiver, it was error for the issue of child custody to be decided on the basis of a report of the Department of Family & Children Services where the losing parent was denied access to that report.” McNabb v. Carver, 242 Ga. 526, 528 (250 SE2d 447) (1978). Accord, Anderson v. Anderson, 238 Ga. 631 (235 SE2d 11) (1977); Westmoreland v. Westmoreland, 241 Ga. 552 (246 SE2d 672) (1978). Compare In the Interest of J. C., 242 Ga. 737, 740 (251 SE2d 299) (1978).

It was error to decide the issue of child custody on the basis of information access to which was denied the opposite party.

Judgment reversed.

McMurray, P. J., and Pope, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Quillian, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal by the mother from an award of the parties’ minor children to the father. We granted an application for discretionary review in order to consider the principal issue as to whether the trial judge properly utilized a psychological evaluation of the parents and a summary prepared by the Department of Family and Children’s Services in order to determine custody, while denying the mother access to this information. Held:

On similar facts, the Supreme Court has pronounced the legal maxim: “ ‘... It is error... for the issue of child custody to be decided on the basis of [a report of the juvenile court] where either parent is denied access to the report and is thereby denied a hearing and the right to examine witnesses in an effort to refute the report.’ That rule of fundamental fairness applies with equal force to reports such as that of the Department of Family & Children Services at issue here. Therefore, in the absence of waiver, it was error for the issue of child custody to be decided on the basis of a report of the Department of Family & Children Services where the losing parent was denied access to that report.” McNabb v. Carver, 242 Ga. 526, 528 (250 SE2d 447) (1978). Accord, Anderson v. Anderson, 238 Ga. 631 (235 SE2d 11) (1977); Westmoreland v. Westmoreland, 241 Ga. 552 (246 SE2d 672) (1978). Compare In the Interest of J. C., 242 Ga. 737, 740 (251 SE2d 299) (1978).

It was error to decide the issue of child custody on the basis of information access to which was denied the opposite party.

Judgment reversed.

McMurray, P. J., and Pope, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 S.E.2d 727, 158 Ga. App. 277, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 2160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diggs-v-diggs-gactapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack