Ohiogal
Queen Bee
Stepmother SHHHHHH
GOOGLE bodne vs. Bodne
From a paper on it:
In Bodne, the Georgia Supreme Court held that “in relocation cases, as in all child custody cases, the trial court must consider the best interests of the child”. In so holding, Georgia Supreme Court overturned at least twelve Georgia cases representing decades of common law regarding relocation in custody cases. Furthermore, as the dissent in Bodne notes, the majority decision in Bodne may also be read to overrule an almost century-old presumption that a custodial parent had a prima facie right to continue to retain custody absent a showing of a material change in circumstances affecting the welfare of the child, in any case, not just a relocation case.
And then:
Prior to Bodne, to change custody, the trial court had to find affirmatively that either the original custodian was no longer able or suited to retain custody, or conditions surrounding the child had changed so that modification of custody would have the effect of promoting his welfare. It was the change for the worse in conditions in the child’s present home environment, rather than the purported change for the better in the environment of the non-custodial parent, which controlled. Ormandy v. Odom, 217 Ga. App. 780 (1995); Mercer v. Foster, 210 Ga. 546, 81 S.E.2d 871 (1954). Once such a change of condition was determined, then the primary consideration for a change of custody was the welfare of the child, or the best interests standard.
And:
The holding in Bodne is as follows: “When exercising its discretion in relocation cases, as in all child custody case, the trial court must consider the best interests of the child and cannot apply a bright-line test.” Id. at 1. The bright-line tests that cannot be applied are the presumption that “the custodial parent has a prima facie right to retain custody” or any self-executing change of custody provision as in Carr or Scott.
And:
With regard to relocation cases, Bodne and Lewis and Scott together do provide some guidance to practitioners: relocation is grounds for a modification of custody action, and in that modification action, the trial court will apply the best interests of the child analysis.
Further, at the time of the original award of custody, relocation cannot be dealt with by self -executing change of custody (a “Carr provision”).
There is NOT a presumption towards the CP retaining custody anymore. It is very possible for the CP to lose custody unless they can show it is in the BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD.. That is per the Georgia Supreme Court.
GOOGLE bodne vs. Bodne
From a paper on it:
In Bodne, the Georgia Supreme Court held that “in relocation cases, as in all child custody cases, the trial court must consider the best interests of the child”. In so holding, Georgia Supreme Court overturned at least twelve Georgia cases representing decades of common law regarding relocation in custody cases. Furthermore, as the dissent in Bodne notes, the majority decision in Bodne may also be read to overrule an almost century-old presumption that a custodial parent had a prima facie right to continue to retain custody absent a showing of a material change in circumstances affecting the welfare of the child, in any case, not just a relocation case.
And then:
Prior to Bodne, to change custody, the trial court had to find affirmatively that either the original custodian was no longer able or suited to retain custody, or conditions surrounding the child had changed so that modification of custody would have the effect of promoting his welfare. It was the change for the worse in conditions in the child’s present home environment, rather than the purported change for the better in the environment of the non-custodial parent, which controlled. Ormandy v. Odom, 217 Ga. App. 780 (1995); Mercer v. Foster, 210 Ga. 546, 81 S.E.2d 871 (1954). Once such a change of condition was determined, then the primary consideration for a change of custody was the welfare of the child, or the best interests standard.
And:
The holding in Bodne is as follows: “When exercising its discretion in relocation cases, as in all child custody case, the trial court must consider the best interests of the child and cannot apply a bright-line test.” Id. at 1. The bright-line tests that cannot be applied are the presumption that “the custodial parent has a prima facie right to retain custody” or any self-executing change of custody provision as in Carr or Scott.
And:
With regard to relocation cases, Bodne and Lewis and Scott together do provide some guidance to practitioners: relocation is grounds for a modification of custody action, and in that modification action, the trial court will apply the best interests of the child analysis.
Further, at the time of the original award of custody, relocation cannot be dealt with by self -executing change of custody (a “Carr provision”).
There is NOT a presumption towards the CP retaining custody anymore. It is very possible for the CP to lose custody unless they can show it is in the BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD.. That is per the Georgia Supreme Court.
