A Georgia judge who rules on a grandparent visitation petition has to put specific written findings of fact in the order, and an order without them will not survive an appeal.
What the Statute Requires
OCGA 19-7-3(c)(1) sets the standard for granting visitation to a grandparent – clear and convincing evidence that the child’s health or welfare would be harmed without it, plus the child’s best interests – and then closes with a one-sentence command: “The court shall make specific written findings of fact in support of its rulings.” The same requirement appears in OCGA 19-7-3(d)(1) for orders entered after a parent has died, become incapacitated, or been incarcerated.
Two things have to be visible on the face of the order. The findings themselves, and the standard the judge applied in reaching them.
Examples of Orders That Failed
For example, in Rainey v. Lange, 261 Ga. App. 491 (2003), a trial court granted visitation to maternal grandparents on a single sentence reciting that “enough issues have been raised” between the parents that visitation would serve the child’s interests “by way of providing a system of checks and balances.” The Court of Appeals called that a “broad conclusory statement,” vacated the order, and sent the case back for real findings under a clear and convincing evidence standard.
Similarly, in In re K.I.S., 294 Ga. App. 295 (2008), a juvenile court cut a grandmother’s existing visitation back to whatever the child’s custodians chose to allow. The Court of Appeals remanded because the order “fails to recite what standard was applied,” leaving the appellate court unable to review it intelligently.
Why It Matters to You
If you won or lost a grandparent visitation hearing on an order that says almost nothing, the missing findings are themselves a ground for appeal.
Contact Us
This post is a quick overview of the law and is not intended as legal advice. Please feel free to contact our office for a consultation if you have questions about this or any other legal aspects regarding your case!