Ford v. Ford, 818 S.E.2d 690 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · Go Syfert
Ford v. Ford, 818 S.E.2d 690 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
63 citation events (63 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Joshua Logan Mosher v. Haley Denise Mosher (gactapp, 2025-08-15)
Treatment trajectory · 2018 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2018 2022 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 25 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Joshua Logan Mosher v. Haley Denise Mosher
Ga. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
We are mindful that “[a] direct appeal is proper under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11) from all judgments or orders ‘in child custody cases’ that award, refuse to change, or modify child custody, or orders that hold or decline to hold persons in contempt of child custody orders.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Ford v. Ford, 347 Ga. App. 233, 234 ( 818 SE2d 690 ) (2018).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Shandis Phaneuf v. Paul Christopher Anthony
Ga. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
Defender Program, 315 Ga. 319, 324 (2) ( 882 SE2d 257 ) (2022); Ford v. Ford, 347 Ga. App. 233, 233-234 ( 818 SE2d 690 ) (2018) (dismissing direct appeal involving domestic relations issue because appellant was required to bring the appeal via the discretionary application procedure set forth in OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ochiagha Onyemobi v. Ijeoma Onyemobi
Ga. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
Ford v. Ford, 347 Ga. App. 233, 234 ( 818 SE2d 690 ) (2018).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Heidi Moua v. Douachi Ly (2×) also: Cited "see"
Ga. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
While the divorce decree here included an award of custody of the parties’ children, and OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11) authorizes a direct appeal from all judgments or orders “in child custody cases” that award, refuse to change, or modify child custody, that statute “allows a direct appeal from the types of orders specified in that statute that are entered in ‘custody cases’ but not from orders relating to child custody issues that are entered in ‘divorce cases.’” Ford v. Ford, 347 Ga. App. 233, 234 ( 818 SE2d 690 ) (2018) (punctuation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) DOUGLAS WILLIAMS v. CASTLE HOME PRO, LLC
Ga. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
Both parties accepted this Court’s invitation to do so, but the most said about J&J from those briefs and oral argument is that J&J “did not file an Answer or other responsive pleading or otherwise appear before the trial court at any stage during this litigation,”3 and Williams never sought a default judgment against J&J.4 An understanding of J&J’s status as a party and whether this action remains pending against J&J is relevant to this Court’s jurisdiction because J&J’s status judgment, a party may also appeal directly from the OCGA § 9-15-14 post-judgment award without regard t…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Duriel Hanna v. Melissa Hanna
Ga. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
See OCGA § 5-6-33 (a) (2) (providing that [a]ppeals from judgments or orders in divorce, alimony, and other domestic relations cases” are subject to this Court’s discretionary appeal procedures); Ford v. Ford, 347 Ga. App. 233, 234 ( 818 SE2d 690 ) (2018) (explaining that because the appeal arose from an order issued in a divorce proceeding, “the appellant was required to bring the appeal via the discretionary application procedure set forth in OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2)”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Torrence Steven Jackson v. Viola Shandtrala Jackson
Ga. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
But OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11) allows a “direct appeal from the types of orders specified in that statute that are entered in ‘custody cases’ [and] not from orders relating to child custody issues that are entered in ‘divorce cases.’” Voyles v. Voyles, 301 Ga. 44, 45-46 ( 799 SE2d 160 ) (2017); see also Hoover v. Hoover, 295 Ga. 132, 134 (1) ( 757 SE2d 838 ) (2014) (holding that when child custody issues are ancillary to a divorce action, the determination of child custody does not transform the case into a “child custody case”); Todd v. Todd, 287 Ga. 250, 251 (1) ( 703 SE2d 597 )…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In the Interest of A. B., a Child (Mother)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
On remand the juvenile court must determine whether Appellant was denied her constitutional or statutory right to counsel and, if so, whether a remedy is available. 2 “It is well established that this [c]ourt has a solemn duty to inquire into our jurisdiction to review the errors enumerated on appeal, and it is a duty we do not take lightly.” Ford v. Ford, 347 Ga. App. 233, 233 ( 818 SE2d 690 ) (2018) (citation and punctuation omitted).”The proper and timely filing of the notice of appeal is an absolute requirement to confer jurisdiction upon the appellate court.” Smith v. McTaggart, 3…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mohammed Abdul Hafeez Mughni v. Beyond Management Group, Inc.
Ga. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
“It is well established that this Court has a solemn duty to 2 Additional facts will be addressed in considering Hafeez’s appellate arguments. 2 inquire into our jurisdiction to review the errors enumerated on appeal, and it is a duty we do not take lightly.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Ford v. Ford, 347 Ga. App. 233, 233 ( 818 SE2d 690 ) (2018).
discussed Cited "see" Daryl Lewis v. Shawnequa Lewis (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ford v. Ford, 347 Ga. App. 233, 234 ( 818 SE2d 690 ) (2018).
discussed Cited "see" Hasan B. Reid v. Kimone Bennett (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ford v. Ford, 347 Ga. App. 233, 234 ( 818 SE2d 690 ) (2018).
discussed Cited "see" Yvonne E. Lee v. Paul W. Lee (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ford v. Ford, 347 Ga. App. 233, 234 ( 818 SE2d 690 ) (2018).
discussed Cited "see" Keith B. Lafavor v. Rakeshia Lafavor (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ford v. Ford, 347 Ga. App. 233, 234 ( 818 SE2d 690 ) (2018).
discussed Cited "see" Richard Grant, Jr. v. Cheyanne Willard (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ford v. Ford, 347 Ga. App. 233, 234 ( 818 SE2d 690 ) (2018).
discussed Cited "see" Keith B. Lafavor v. Rakeshia Lafavor (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ford v. Ford, 347 Ga. App. 233, 234 ( 818 SE2d 690 ) (2018).
discussed Cited "see" Jawad Bhatti v. Najma Bhatti (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ford v. Ford, 347 Ga. App. 233, 234 ( 818 SE2d 690 ) (2018).
discussed Cited "see" Shantice Glinsey v. Jamaal Glinsey (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ford v. Ford, 347 Ga. App. 233, 234 ( 818 SE2d 690 ) (2018).
examined Cited "see" Caleb Cole Thompson v. Amber Louise Thompson (3×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2022 · signal: accord · confidence high
“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 SE2d 597 ) (2010); accord Ford v. Ford, 347 Ga. App. 233, 234 ( 818 SE2d 690 ) (2018).
examined Cited "see" Jonah Addis v. Deauna McQueen (3×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2022 · signal: accord · confidence high
“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 SE2d 597 ) (2010); accord Ford v. Ford, 347 Ga. App. 233, 234 ( 818 SE2d 690 ) (2018).
examined Cited "see" Keith Lee Stewart v. Bridgette Stewart (3×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2021 · signal: accord · confidence high
“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 SE2d 597 ) (2010); accord Ford v. Ford, 347 Ga. App. 233, 234 ( 818 SE2d 690 ) (2018).
discussed Cited "see" COLEMAN v. PRETIUM MORTGAGE ACQUISITIONS TRUST Et Al. (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally Ford v. Ford , 347 Ga. App. 233 , 818 S.E.2d 690 (2018) (appellate court has duty to inquire into its jurisdiction to review errors enumerated on appeal).
discussed Cited "see" LONG v. TRUEX (Two Cases). (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally Ford v. Ford , 347 Ga. App. 233 , 818 S.E.2d 690 (2018) (appellate *68 court has duty to inquire into its jurisdiction to review errors enumerated on appeal).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Lily Li-Yi Patel v. Nikhil Patel (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2025 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Ford v. Ford, 347 Ga. App. 233, 234 ( 818 SE2d 690 ) (2018) (looking to the underlying subject matter of the action to determine the appeal process, even if the only issues raised on appeal concern child custody).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Bianca Flor Mascorro v. Raul Javier Monjaraz
Ga. Ct. App. · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence low
See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2), (b); Numanovic v. Jones, 321 Ga. App. 763, 764 ( 743 SE2d 450 ) (2013); Cloud v. Norwood, 321 Ga. App. 218 ( 739 SE2d 93 ) (2013); Brown v. Williams, 174 Ga. App. 604 ( 332 SE2d 48 ) (1985). “[C]ompliance with the discretionary appeals procedure is jurisdictional.” Fabe v. Floyd, 199 Ga. App. 322, 332 (1) ( 405 SE2d 265 ) (1991); see also Ford, 347 Ga. App. at 234 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Willie R. Edwards v. Billie Edwards
Ga. Ct. App. · 2018 · signal: see also · confidence low
However, OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11) allows a “direct appeal from the types of orders specified in that statute that are entered in ‘custody cases’ but not from orders relating to child custody issues that are entered in ‘divorce cases.’” Voyles v. Voyles, 301 Ga. 44, 45-46 ( 799 SE2d 160 ) (2017); see Hoover v. Hoover, 295 Ga. 132, 134 (1) ( 757 SE2d 838 ) (2014) (holding that when child custody issues are ancillary to a divorce action, the determination of child custody does not transform the case into a “child custody case” for purposes of determining the appropriate method for …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
FORD
v.
FORD.
A18A1156.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Aug 30, 2018.
818 S.E.2d 690
John Francis Connolly, Canton, for Appellant., Joann Brown Sharp, Margaret Eileen Simpson, Atlanta, for Appellee.
Bethel.
Cited by 29 opinions  |  Published
Pinpoint authority: bottom 25%
Bethel, Judge.

[*691] [*233] Christopher Matthew Ford (father) appeals from the trial court's judgment granting a divorce from Cynthia Avery Ford (mother). On appeal, father challenges a series of orders entered by the trial court granting the parties' divorce and ultimately awarding mother sole custody of the parties' four minor children. Because the father had no right to bring this appeal directly, this Court lacks jurisdiction. This appeal is therefore dismissed, and we do not reach the merits of the father's enumerations of error.

"It is well established that this Court has a solemn duty to inquire into our jurisdiction to review the errors enumerated on appeal, and it is a duty we do not take lightly." Pathfinder Payment Solutions, Inc. v. Global Payments Direct, Inc. , 344 Ga.App. 490, 490, 810 S.E.2d 653 (2018) (footnote and punctuation omitted). Where the issue is not raised by the parties to the appeal, the Court is empowered to do so on its own motion. Miller v. State , 264 Ga.App. 801, 802, 592 S.E.2d 450 (2003).

[*234] As our Supreme Court has recently discussed,

Generally, appeals from orders entered in domestic relations cases must be pursued by discretionary application. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2). A direct appeal is proper under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11) from all judgments or orders 'in child custody cases' that award, refuse to change, or modify child custody, or orders that hold or decline to hold persons in contempt of child custody orders. [ OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11) allows] a direct appeal from the types of orders specified in that statute that are entered in 'custody cases' but not from orders relating to child custody issues that are entered in 'divorce cases.' See Hoover v. Hoover , 295 Ga. 132, 134 (1), 757 S.E.2d 838 (2014) (where child custody issues are ancillary to a divorce action, the determination of child custody does not transform the case into a 'child custody case'); Todd v. Todd , 287 Ga. 250, 251 (1), 703 S.E.2d 597 (2010) ('[a]ll other issues in a divorce action, including child custody, are merely ancillary to [the] primary issue [of whether the marriage should be dissolved]').

Voyles v. Voyles , 301 Ga. 44, 45-46, 799 S.E.2d 160 (2017) (footnote omitted).

This case is part of a divorce proceeding between the parties. While the issues raised on appeal touch only on the propriety of the trial court's award of custody to the parties' four minor children to the mother as part of those proceedings, the posture of this case is indistinguishable from that in Hoover and Todd. In those cases, the Supreme Court determined that even though child custody was at issue on appeal, because that issue was being addressed in a divorce proceeding, the appellant was required to bring the appeal via the discretionary application procedure set forth in OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2). See Todd , 287 Ga. at 252, 703 S.E.2d 597 ("[E]ven if the only relief sought on appeal pertains to [the] custody decision, the underlying subject matter is still the divorce action and its resulting final decree."); Hoover , 295 Ga. at 134, 757 S.E.2d 838 (appropriate method for appeal of child custody provisions of divorce decree is an application for discretionary appeal pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2), not direct appeal as authorized by OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11) ).

As the father did not pursue discretionary review in this case, we lack jurisdiction. His appeal is therefore dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Ellington, P.J., and Gobeil, J., concur.