Additional Protocols the Judges Use in Deciding Custody Cases
In custody cases in the state of Georgia, pursuant to O.C.G.A. 19-9-3, the courts have a wide discretion in considering the statutory factors awarding custody and in performing other actions to determine the best interest of the children. Specifically, pursuant to O.C.G.A. §19-9-3(a)(7), the court is authorized to “order a psychological custody evaluation of the family or an independent medical evaluation.” The judges can also appoint a Guardian Ad Litem to investigate what truly is in the best interest of the children and report to the judge on those issues. According to Uniform Superior Cour rule 29.4, the Guardian Ad Litem is an officer of the court (could be an attorney or a specially trained person ) that shall assist the court and the parties in reaching a decision regarding custody, visitation, and child-related issues. Should the issue of child custody and/or visitation be tried, the Guardian Ad Litem will be available to offer testimony. Usually Guardians request children’s medical, mental health, and educational records. In addition, Guardians may perform home visits and observe the minor children with each parent as well as they speak with the minor children’s teachers, medical providers, therapists, eclose family members, etc. with the children.
Lately, and increasingly often in high conflict cases where children heavily prefer one parent over the other or where the minor children are refusing to have any type of interaction with the non-preferred parent, the court orders reunification therapy which is a specialized therapeutic process mapped out to repair the relations between the non-preferred parent and the minor children. For example, in some counties in the State of Georgia, divorce process can take over one to two years and often the children, after months of hearing disparaging remarks from the primary parent about the other, refuse to visit the other party or don’t feel safe or comfortable with them. Georgia has a large number of very experiences providers that specialize in reunification process form such as Diane Dierk’s Center for Navigating Family Change and many others who employ parenting coordinators and reunification therapists.
Reunification is an extremely complex process which often involves including multiple therapists in addition to the main reunification therapist in charge. For example, separate therapists for both parental figures and each minor child. Sometimes the reunification process must be stayed in order to allow nonpreferred parent and minor child to work through complex issues on their own individually with therapists before continuing reunification process. If performed incorrectly it can cause more damage than doing nothing. With Atlanta being an international hub, one of the biggest injustices we are lately seeing in some high conflict custody modification cases where at least one of the parties is from a foreign country, is when Georgia judges bring in and appoint for reunification purposes therapists who claim to specialize in reunification therapy but are not licensed, certified in the State of Georgia regulated in any other way in the State of Georgia. Such companies sometimes sell its reunification services as an education program.
For example, pseudo therapists from overseas who don’t have any real studies to back up the results of their reunification practices or reunification camps with any scientific protocols or research and data behind what they do sell reunification services for a very high price and get appointed in Georgia cases. This lack of regulation or certification causes a lack of accountability to the authorities in the State of Georgia allowing these companies to run astray. That is why it is extremely important that legislation such as Ethan’s Law (HB 253) that bans judges in the State of Georgia from ordering family reunification services that violate circumstances such as a “court order requiring that a child have no contact with his or her parent or legal guardian” or an “overnight, out-of-state, or multiday stay, or a use of private youth transporters or private transportation agents engaged in the use of force, the threat of force, physical obstruction, acutely distressing circumstances, or circumstances that place the safety of the child at risk”; or a “ 90 day or more no-contact period between the child and his or her parent or legal guardian”; or “the use of threats of:
- (i) Physical force;
- (ii) Undue coercion;
- (iii) Verbal abuse;
- (iv) Isolation from the child’s family, community, or other sources of support; or
- (v) Other distressing circumstances”.
The Ethan Law has successfully passed the House, and now is in Senate. While the currently version of the HB 253 is not perfect and needs some serious revisions, the direction that Georgia legislators are taken to protect minor children in the State of Georgia is extremally important to protect our children and keep reunification providers accountable.
Dina Khismatulina
