Rhodes v. Peacock

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Rhodes v. Peacock

235 S.E.2d 762, 142 Ga. App. 328, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 1600

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 18, 1977

Docket53868

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 235 S.E.2d 762 (Rhodes v. Peacock) 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

Rhodes v. Peacock, 235 S.E.2d 762, 142 Ga. App. 328, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 1600 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Banke, Judge.

The appellants, maternal grandparents of Brandi Lee Peacock, whose mother is deceased, petitioned the trial court for visitation rights. The appellee is the father of the minor child, and there is no question before any court concerning his right to custody of the child. The trial judge dismissed the appellants’ complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and they appeal that order to this court.

Prior to the enactment of Code Ann. § 74-112 (Ga. L. 1976, p. 247), the law of this state was that grandparents could not obtain orders giving them the right to visit their grandchildren. Jackson v. Martin, 225 Ga. 170 (2) (167 SE2d 135) (1969); Davis v. Davis, 212 Ga. 217 (91 SE2d 487) (1956). Code Ann. § 74-112, supra, which was enacted in 1976, provides: "Whenever any court in this state shall have before it any question concerning the custody of or guardianship of any minor child, the court may, in its discretion, grant reasonable visitation rights to the maternal and paternal grandparents of the child. Any court granting such rights may issue its necessary order to enforce the grant.” Because the trial court did not have before it any question concerning the custody or guardianship of the minor child, Code Ann. § 74-112, supra, is inapplicable to the instant case. In George v. Sizemore, 238 Ga. 525 (1977), the trial court did have before it a question concerning the custody of the child. Thus, George v. Sizemore is distinguished from the case sub judice.

While the appellants contend Code Ann. § 74-112 (Ga. L. 1976, p. 247) should appropriately be called "The Grandparents’ Bill of Rights,” the Georgia General *329 Assembly simply did not include the right for which they have petitioned. The inclusion of such alleged right remains vested in the General Assembly and not this court — irrespective of the views of some "Grandfather” judges.

Submitted May 9, 1977 Decided May 18, 1977. Douglas L. Breault, for appellants. Elkins & Flournoy, James A. Elkins, Jr., for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian, P. J., and Shulman, J., concur.

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

Banke, Judge.

The appellants, maternal grandparents of Brandi Lee Peacock, whose mother is deceased, petitioned the trial court for visitation rights. The appellee is the father of the minor child, and there is no question before any court concerning his right to custody of the child. The trial judge dismissed the appellants’ complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and they appeal that order to this court.

Prior to the enactment of Code Ann. § 74-112 (Ga. L. 1976, p. 247), the law of this state was that grandparents could not obtain orders giving them the right to visit their grandchildren. Jackson v. Martin, 225 Ga. 170 (2) (167 SE2d 135) (1969); Davis v. Davis, 212 Ga. 217 (91 SE2d 487) (1956). Code Ann. § 74-112, supra, which was enacted in 1976, provides: "Whenever any court in this state shall have before it any question concerning the custody of or guardianship of any minor child, the court may, in its discretion, grant reasonable visitation rights to the maternal and paternal grandparents of the child. Any court granting such rights may issue its necessary order to enforce the grant.” Because the trial court did not have before it any question concerning the custody or guardianship of the minor child, Code Ann. § 74-112, supra, is inapplicable to the instant case. In George v. Sizemore, 238 Ga. 525 (1977), the trial court did have before it a question concerning the custody of the child. Thus, George v. Sizemore is distinguished from the case sub judice.

While the appellants contend Code Ann. § 74-112 (Ga. L. 1976, p. 247) should appropriately be called "The Grandparents’ Bill of Rights,” the Georgia General *329 Assembly simply did not include the right for which they have petitioned. The inclusion of such alleged right remains vested in the General Assembly and not this court — irrespective of the views of some "Grandfather” judges.

Submitted May 9, 1977 Decided May 18, 1977. Douglas L. Breault, for appellants. Elkins & Flournoy, James A. Elkins, Jr., for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian, P. J., and Shulman, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 S.E.2d 762, 142 Ga. App. 328, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 1600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rhodes-v-peacock-gactapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack