ROEHL v. O\'KEEFE., 243 Ga. 696, 256 S.E.2.d 375 (1979)
Linked as:
Summary
Judgment affirmed in part; reversed in part. All the Justices concur, except Hill, J., who concurs in he judgment only.
Summary
Judgment affirmed in part; reversed in part. All the Justices concur, except Hill, J., who concurs in he judgment only.
Text
Brown & Romeo, Robert T. Romeo, H. Eugene Brown, for appellant.
Delores Ann Roehl appeals the judgment of the trial court holding her in contempt for failing to comply with the visitation rights awarded her former husband on his earlier modification petition. She contends that since their North Carolina divorce was never domesticated, the Superior Court of Pike County had no jurisdiction to modify the visitation conditions set out in their divorce decree and consequently had no authority to hold her in contempt. We do not agree.
1. Delores Ann Roehl, then O'Keefe, and Joseph Daniel O'Keefe were divorced in North Carolina in 1971. Joseph O'Keefe filed his petition to modify both child support and visitation [1] in Pike County, now the domicile of Mrs. Roehl. Only the latter relief was granted and no appeal was taken. Several months later, O'Keefe's petition for contempt, asserting that Mrs. Roehl refused to comply with the changed visitation, was granted by the trial court. It orally denied her motion to dismiss [2] on the basis that the North Carolina decree had never been domesticated, but this judgment was never reduced to writing. We, however, consider all antecedent rulings when a final judgment is entered, and thus reach the merits of her appeal. Code Ann. 6-701 (b).
An authenticated copy of the foreign decree appears in the record of this case, Code Ann. 38-627 (b), but no order has been entered making it a Georgia judgment. [3] Mrs. Roehl asserts that, without doing this, the Pike Superior Court had no subject matter jurisdiction to modify O'Keefe's visitation rights. [4]
Under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, Code Ann. Ch. 74-5, Ga. L. 1978, p. 258 (eff. Jan. 1, 1979), [5] Code Ann. 74-515 (a) (2) provides for modification of custody decrees of another state, if the Georgia courts have jurisdiction. Under Code Ann. 74-516, foreign custody decrees are enforceable merely by filing a certified copy with the clerk of the superior court. Since a certified copy of the North Carolina decree appears in the record, it was properly "domesticated" pursuant to this Act. The trial court thus did not err in refusing to grant Mrs. Roehl's motion to dismiss, and in holding her in contempt for refusing to comply with the Georgia visitation order. White v. White,
2. The trial court was authorized under the evidence to hold Mrs. Roehl in wilful contempt of its modification order. White v. White, supra. We do not find that judgment too vague and indefinite to be enforceable.
3. Mrs. Roehl also asserts that the trial court erred in providing for her incarceration merely by O'Keefe's affidavit to the court that she was not allowing him to exercise his visitation rights. [6] Such a provision is unconstitutional because it violates due process. Mitchell v. Koopu,
1979
Notes:
4. Neither party contends that the North Carolina divorce decree is not entitled to full faith and credit. Boggus v. Boggus,
5. Although this Act was not in effect at the time O'Keefe's visitation rights were changed, its application impairs no vested rights and may be applied on appeal. City of Valdosta v. Singleton,
6. ". . . [I]f Delores Ann Roehl fails to comply with this Court's order and thereby Mr. O'Keefe is not premitted to visit with his son as ordered by the Court, upon Affidavit of Mr. O'Keefe and approved [sic] by this Court with such
Sponsored links
This document cites
- Supreme Court of Georgia - BLUE v. BLUE., 243 Ga. 22, 252 S.E.2.d 452 (1978)
- Supreme Court of Georgia - MITCHELL v. KOOPU., 242 Ga. 506, 249 S.E.2.d 210 (1978)
- Supreme Court of Georgia - BOGGUS v. BOGGUS., 236 Ga. 126, 223 S.E.2.d 103 (1975)
- Supreme Court of Georgia - WHITE v. WHITE., 233 Ga. 289, 210 S.E.2.d 817
- Supreme Court of Georgia - MCGUIRE v. MCGUIRE., 228 Ga. 782, 187 S.E.2.d 859 (1972)
See other documents that cite the same legislation
