IN THE PROFESSION parents should be involved with rearing their children . In fact , research during the last 20 years has shown that co-parenting and a two-parent presence positively affects the social structures of any community . In light of this , public policy is shaped around this research . In these conversations about co-parenting , the question is whether child support should be a condition precedent to parental involvement and the provision of parenting time . Often , the realities litigants , attorneys , and jurists face are in stark contrast to well-established case law and policies .
Georgia law has changed over the decades . Presently , a non-custodial parent does not need to pay child support for parenting time to be awarded . The modern version of O . C . G . A . § 19-9-3 , which lays out the factors of an award of custody , does not require the payment of child support . Still , the law regarding parenting time and the payment of support for the benefit of children has changed over time in Georgia as it has in other jurisdictions .
A century ago , the Supreme Court of Georgia first addressed this issue in Scott v . Scott , 154 Ga . 659 , 115 S . E . 2 , 3 ( 1922 ), where it ruled that parents could restrict parenting time on the basis that an obligee did not pay their child support obligation . At that time , Courts were traditional in their view of domestic support obligations ; jurists believed that fathers should serve as the primary breadwinners of the home . If they failed to do so , the mother could deny the father the right to parenting time as he failed to perform the basic task of providing financial support .
Nearly 40 years after Scott , Georgia Courts began to legally separate parenting time and child support obligations . The first modern decision regarding this issue was made in Stewart v . Stewart , 217 Ga . 509 , 123 S . E . 2d 547 ( 1962 ). The Court of Appeals held that visitation and child support were issues that were not legally linked together . The Court by making this distinction disavowed the notion that child support and parenting time were co-dependent .
Eight years later , in Griffin v . Griffin , 226 Ga . 781 , 177 S . E . 2d 696 ( 1970 ), the Court of Appeals went to greater lengths to prompt separation of child support and parenting time claims . There the Court of Appeals explained the separation between visitation and child support payments as two distinct legal claims . The Court stated that , “[ Stewart ] nor any case there cited is authority for the validity of a decree making the right of visitation or payment of alimony dependent upon compliance with the other .” The Court also stated that , “ it is unnecessary to include in the decree conditions which make visitation contingent upon payment of support or which make payment of support contingent upon allowance of visitation privileges , and any attempt to do so would have the effect of permitting a parent to bargain with the rights of the child .”
Price v . Dawkins , 242 Ga . 41 , 42 , 247 S . E . 2d 844 , 845 ( 1978 ) effectively provided the dispositive rule which explains why O . C . G . A . 19-9-3 does not have a condition for parenting time based on the payment of child support . There , the Supreme Court of Georgia disapproved of Scott and adopted Griffin as the applicable rule in Georgia . Since that time , Georgia Courts have reaffirmed this proposition . The most recent affirmation of Price occurred in Spirnak v . Meadows , 355 Ga . App . 857 , 862 , 844 S . E . 2d 482 , 488 ( 2020 ), where the Court of Appeals stated , “ the trial court cannot make [ a party ' s ] visitation dependent upon his payment of support .”
That said , the often-asked question is : why would a custodial parent continue to assert this position against a non-custodial parent when the law does not support it ? One theory is that proof of payment of child support demonstrates a willingness of the non-custodial parent to be involved in the rearing of the child . Another theory suggests using the child support guidelines allowances of a parenting time deviation to manipulate the amount of support a primary custodial parent receives . Thus , by artificially limiting parenting time , you can request additional support .
When looking at the important aspects of any domestic relations case , the focus should be focused on three points :
1 . Acting in the best interest of establishing and / or reinforcing familial harmony .
2 . Acting in the best interest of the child and their upbringing . 3 . Ensuring that the requested relief falls in line with public policy .
In a family law case that implicates the issues of child support and parenting time and considering the above principles , priority should be given to issues of parenting time based on the above aspects that govern a domestic relations case .
Research shows that children ’ s outcomes are better when both parents are actively involved in raising them . The absence of money and child support can impact a primary custodial parent and the child . However , the state provides multiple avenues to address issues regarding a lack of financial support from a non-custodial parent .
A primary custodial parent can easily file a contempt and enforcement action using a private attorney or seek enforcement through the Department of Child Support Services . Though , there is no recourse for parents who are unable to have parenting time to bond and build memories with their children . A court can order makeup parenting time , but first steps , a child ’ s first haircut , or watching your child go off the first day of school are experiences that cannot be substituted . In capturing the above point : money can be replaced ; however , time is invaluable and unlike money , cannot be replaced .
For these reasons , family law practitioners should advise their clients that parenting time and child support are legally separate matters . Ultimately , while it is important to do the work of securing a favorable outcome for clients , it is also important to remember that the minor children who are the subject of these cases often feel the effects of steps taken in litigation .
The public policy surrounding the current statutory schemes and case law in the state inform counsel and the public that the parents are not the main ones to suffer ; it is often the minor child . Attorneys are social engineers , and thus we should operate with knowledge that child support dependent parenting time is from a foregone era and that it does not serve in the best interest of children .
www . atlantabar . org THE ATLANTA LAWYER 23