Mock v. Mock

Supreme Court of Georgia

Mock v. Mock

369 S.E.2d 255, 258 Ga. 407

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJune 23, 1988

Docket45658

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 369 S.E.2d 255 (Mock v. Mock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mock v. Mock, 369 S.E.2d 255, 258 Ga. 407 (Ga. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Per curiam.

In this case the trial court found both parents equally fit to raise the minor child. However, the trial court granted custody of the child to the father because of his further finding that the mother was at fault in causing the divorce by her adulterous conduct. The trial court’s ruling was based on OCGA § 19-9-l(a) which provides in part: “In all cases in which a divorce is granted, the party not in default shall be entitled to the custody of the minor children of the marriage.” However, this part of the statute is overridden by the rule that “[a]s between parents the right of custody depends upon what will promote the welfare of the children.” Gunnells v. Gunnells, 225 Ga. 188, 189 (1) (167 SE2d 138) (1969).

While the trial court may consider the conduct of the parties on the issue of custody, see Harris v. Harris, 240 Ga. 276, 277 (240 SE2d 30) (1977), the court ultimately must decide the custody question based on the best interest of the child.

We remand the case to the trial court for further consideration of the custody question in light of this opinion. See Lifsey v. Lifsey, 256 Ga. 613 (351 SE2d 637) (1987).

Case remanded.

All the Justices concur.

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

Per curiam.

In this case the trial court found both parents equally fit to raise the minor child. However, the trial court granted custody of the child to the father because of his further finding that the mother was at fault in causing the divorce by her adulterous conduct. The trial court’s ruling was based on OCGA § 19-9-l(a) which provides in part: “In all cases in which a divorce is granted, the party not in default shall be entitled to the custody of the minor children of the marriage.” However, this part of the statute is overridden by the rule that “[a]s between parents the right of custody depends upon what will promote the welfare of the children.” Gunnells v. Gunnells, 225 Ga. 188, 189 (1) (167 SE2d 138) (1969).

While the trial court may consider the conduct of the parties on the issue of custody, see Harris v. Harris, 240 Ga. 276, 277 (240 SE2d 30) (1977), the court ultimately must decide the custody question based on the best interest of the child.

We remand the case to the trial court for further consideration of the custody question in light of this opinion. See Lifsey v. Lifsey, 256 Ga. 613 (351 SE2d 637) (1987).

Case remanded.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

369 S.E.2d 255, 258 Ga. 407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mock-v-mock-ga-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack