IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF
Rita Hardin, *
* Court of Appeals Case Number
Appellant, * A05A1126
*
v. *
*
Douglas Andrew Hardin, *
*
Appellee. *
REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT
The trial court abused his broad discretion by disregarding the severe financial consequences of his decision.
1. The relocation issue was dispositive to the trial court.
Douglas
Hardin devotes much of his brief to the evidence apart from the move itself:
evidence of the children’s ties to the
Although that
additional evidence appears to have reinforced the trial court’s decision, it
would not have been sufficient by itself to sustain the judgment or to persuade
the trial court. Evidence that the
children have beneficial ties to metropolitan
The trial court made clear that the move itself was dispositive. He ruled from the bench. His explanation for the basis of his decision covers four-and-a-half pages of transcript. [R-5/270-275]. For the first three of those pages, the trial court focuses on the law and the appropriate considerations applicable to a relocation case involving “two fit parents,” laying particular emphasis on, and reaffirming, the determination of the judge who presided over the parties initial divorce that the children’s interests would be best served by “complete and full access to both parents.” [R-5/270-273]. Immediately after “reaffirm[ing] its intention to ensure that these children have the most access they can to both parents” [R-5/273], the trial court found “that the best interests of the children will be served … by granting physical custody during the school year to Mr. Hardin and primary custody during the summer to Ms. Hardin.” [R-5/273-274]. Only after making that announcement, did the trial court proceed to briefly take note of the evidence that “showed that the children benefited from their associations here, both with family, with friends and … with the Barrys” and of the evidence that showed “some difficulties at school.” [R-5/274]. The trial court concluded his explanation as follows:
I do not find that Ms. Hardin’s move was in bad faith. I think she did it to economically better herself and, you know, by extension, her family; however, that does not in and of itself allow her to, or in the judgment of The Court, based upon the evidence in this case and the dynamics of this family, to trump the Court’s previous determination and the Court’s continued determination that the children benefit from joint custody.
[R-5/274-275]. The trial court then began to set out the details of his ruling. [R-5/275].
2. The severe financial consequences to
Rita Hardin of giving up her
Andrew
Hardin attempts to set up the financial consequences to Rita Hardin, of giving
up the
3. No policy precludes reconsideration.
Without citation of authority, Andrew Hardin asserts that various policy consideration preclude reconsideration. Brief of Appellee, p. 20. Reconsideration would not violate the policy against advisory opinions. O.C.G.A. § 9-4-2. Reconsideration would “not render meaningless the evidence and argument of the trial.” See Brief of Appellee, p. 20. Reconsideration would serve the best interests of the children.
WHEREFORE Appellant Rita Hardin prays that the trial court’s judgment be reversed and remanded.
______________________________
Christopher
J. McFadden
Attorney
for Appellant
404/601-4121
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
This is to
certify that I have this day served opposing counsel in the foregoing matter
with a copy of this pleading by courier addressed as follows:
Douglas
Warren Auld, Esq.
This 7 day
of April, 2005.
________________________
Christopher J. McFadden