IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF GEORGIA
IN RE: MONICA JONES vs. NAJEE SHAREEF
PETITION TO OVERTURN SUPERIOR COURT DECISION CASE N0.20FM6247
INITIAL BRIEF
NAJEE SHAREEF
Appellant
Vs.
MONICA JONES
Respondent
APPEAL
Statement of the Proceedings Below
This appeal follows the Respondent being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the decision of the
Superior Court of Dekalb County State of Georgia dated the …………… day of ………….2022,
the Appellant appeals the decision on the several grounds.
Argument and Citation of Authorities
1. That it is premature to annul the marriage contract entered into between the parties and
should not be set aside not dissolved as if the contract had never been made or entered
into by the Appellant and Respondent herein.
2. That it would be sufficient to have the parties regarded as separated as opposed to
granting a divorce order not backed by both parties.
3. Regarding child custody, in Young v. Young, 209 Ga. 711, 714 (3), 75 S.E.2d 433
(1953) the court stated that the burden is on parent seeking modification of current
custody award "to show affirmatively a change in circumstances that would free the case
from the former adjudication".
4. Moreover, in the case of Helm v. Graham, 249 Ga. App. 126, 129, 547 S.E.2d 343
(2001) the court stated “noting that "[i]f the original custody order has been modified, the
focus shifts to the latest custody award" to determine if "there has been a material change
of condition affecting the welfare of the child since the last custody award") (punctuation
and footnote omitted). The court concluded that the mother failed to carry that burden,
and we discern no abuse of discretion in light of the record here.
5. Accordingly, the Appellant contends that the Respondent did not discharge the burden
placed upon it that there has been a significant change in circumstance to merit the grant
of total legal and physical custody of the children on the Respondent herein.
6. Furthermore, in the case of Scott v. Scott, 227 Ga. App. 346, 349 (1), 489 S.E.2d 117
(1997), the court did not abuse its discretion in finding that changes were not so
significant as to constitute a material change in circumstances. Moreover, even if the
strife between the parents had worsened to some degree, the mother was required to show
that the changed condition affected the welfare of the children.
7. Additionally, in Mahan v. McRae, 241 Ga. App. 109, 112, 522 S.E.2d 772 (1999), there
was no evidence that the children’s welfare had been affected. The court therefore acted
within its discretion in concluding that there had been no material change in
circumstances and thus in denying the mother’s counterclaim seeking a modification in
primary physical custody.
8. The Appellant accordingly contends that the change in circumstance hence the arguments
between him and the Respondent, has materially and significantly affected the welfare of
the children.
9. There is thus no material change in circumstance that merits the grant of primary custody
of the children to the Respondent. If so, the Respondent pleads with this court to grant
him visitation rights which the Superior Court failed to.
10. In Cannella v. Graham, 325 Ga. App. 596, 596, 754 S.E.2d 385 (2014). See OCGA §
19-9-3 (b). "The standard to be applied in deciding visitation rights is the best interests of
the child. Further, it is the express policy of this state to encourage contact between a
child and the non-custodial divorced parent. OCGA § 19-9-3 (d)." In the Interest of R.
E. W., 220 Ga. App. 861, 862, 471 S.E.2d 6 (1996). "The court is vested with discretion
regarding visitation." Durham v. Gipson, 261 Ga. App. 602, 607 (2), 583 S.E.2d 254
(2003).
11. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals has the discretion to grant visitation rights to the
Appellant which is in the best interests of the children of both the Appellant and
Respondent.
CONCLUSION
12. For the foregoing reasons, the Appellant respectfully requests that this Court reverses the
decision of the Superior Court ad order that the Court grant the Appeal.
This the 4 th day of September, 2022
Respectfully submitted,
Najee Shareef,
Address…….
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that, given this case involves the denial of an unopposed petition to change the
name of Petitioner, there is no opposing counsel to serve or otherwise notify of this INITIAL
BRIEF OF APPELLANT.
This 4 th day of September, 2022.
/s Najee Shareef
Georgia Bar No. ……..
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )