Opinion
A22A1376
05-06-2022
CALEB COLE THOMPSON v. AMBER LOUISE THOMPSON.
Caleb Cole Thompson has filed this direct appeal from the trial court's final judgment and decree granting Amber Louise Thompson's petition for divorce, awarding Amber sole legal and physical custody of the parties' minor children, and declining to award Caleb visitation with the children. We, however, lack jurisdiction.
Under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11), direct appeals may be had from "[a]ll judgments or orders in child custody cases awarding, refusing to change, or modifying child custody or holding or declining to hold persons in contempt of such child custody judgment or orders." "Appeals from judgments or orders in divorce, alimony, and other domestic relations cases," however, must be initiated by filing an application for discretionary review. OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2), (b). Thus, direct appeals will not lie from "orders relating to child custody issues that are entered in divorce cases." Voyles v. Voyles, 301 Ga. 44, 45 (799 S.E.2d 160) (2017) (punctuation omitted); accord Hoover v. Hoover, 295 Ga. 132, 134 (1) (757 S.E.2d 838) (2014) ("Where, as here, child custody issues are ancillary to a divorce action, the determination of child custody does not transform the case into a 'child custody case,' as that phrase is used in OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11), for purposes of determining the appropriate method for appealing a child custody order.").
"Because this is not a child custody case, but is a divorce case in which child custody is an issue, OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2) requires an application for discretionary appeal, and a direct appeal is not authorized by OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11)." Todd v. Todd, 287 Ga. 250, 252 (1) (703 S.E.2d 597) (2010); accord Ford v. Ford, 347 Ga.App. 233, 234 (818 S.E.2d 690) (2018). "Compliance with the discretionary appeals procedure is jurisdictional." Smoak v. Dept. of Human Resources, 221 Ga.App. 257, 257 (471 S.E.2d 60) (1996). Caleb Thompson's failure to follow the required appellate procedure deprives us of jurisdiction over this direct appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED. See Ford, 347 Ga.App. at 234.