This case involves a custody dispute between a biological mother and her parents over three minor children.1 In 2006, Roy and Betty Strickland grandparents obtained emergency custody of the three minor children of their daughter, Lea Strickland mother. Subsequently, in October 2008, the juvenile court found all three children were deprived and, with mother’s consent, extended the grandparents’ temporary custody of the children through July 2010, granting mother supervised visitation. In mid-2010, grandparents filed a petition for permanent custody in Paulding County Superior Court. The case was transferred to Cobb County Superior Court after the parties agreed venue was appropriate there. Following a five day bench trial, the superior court entered an order granting grandparents’ petition. Mother appealed, and finding that grandparents had failed to meet the high burden of proof sufficient to deprive mother of her custodial rights to the children, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court. See Strickland v. Strickland, 330 Ga. App. 879 769 SE2d 607 2015. Grandparents filed a petition for writ of certiorari in which they claimed the Court of Appeals erred in failing to give appropriate deference to the trial court’s factual findings and thus erred in reversing the trial court’s award of permanent custody to them. Because we find the Court of Appeals failed to properly apply the correct standard of review, we reverse the decision in this case.
1. Custody disputes between a natural parent and close third party relatives are governed by OCGA § 19-7-1 b.1.2 This statute provides that, in awarding custody, the sole issue for determination . . . shall be what is in the best interest of the child or children. OCGA § 19-7-1 b.1. However, it also establishes a rebuttable presumption that it is in the best interest of a child to award custody to the parent of the child. Id. To overcome this presumption, a third-party relative must show, with clear and convincing evidence, that the child will suffer either physical harm or significant, long-term emotional harm if custody is awarded to the parent. See Clark v. Wade, 273 Ga. 587, 598-599 IV 544 SE2d 99 2001. In addressing the issue of harm, trial courts must consider a variety of factors beyond biological connection or generalized notions of parental fitness. They also must consider the parental needs and the circumstances of the child in question, see id., including 1 who are the past and present caretakers of the child or children; 2 with whom has the child or children formed psychological bonds and how strong are these bonds; 3 have the competing parties evidenced interest in, and contact with, the child or children over time; and 4 are there any unique medical or psychological needs of the child or children. Id.
