Aaron Charles Black and Michelle Lee Black were married in 1996, and after four children were born of their marriage, they were divorced in Houston County. Michelle appeals from the final decree of divorce,1 contending that the trial court was without jurisdiction to grant a divorce, that it erred when it refused to stay its proceedings in favor of pending divorce proceedings in New York, and that it erred in its final decree with respect to an equitable division of marital property, child support, and a provision that evidently was intended to enable Michelle to retain her health insurance. We agree that the trial court erred with respect to a deviation from the presumptive amount of child support to account for the payment of life insurance premiums, and we also agree that the trial court erred in its framing of the provision to enable Michelle to retain her health insurance, so we vacate those portions of the decree and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We find no other error, however, and we otherwise affirm the final decree of divorce.
1. We first consider whether the trial court had jurisdiction to grant a divorce in this case, and we begin our consideration with OCGA § 19-5-2, which provides in pertinent part that “no court shall grant a divorce to any person who has not been a bona fide resident of this state for six months before the filing of the petition for divorce.”2 As we have explained before, the party petitioning for a divorce bears the burden to prove that he was a “bona fide resident” of Georgia for the time required by OCGA § 19-5-2, and to carry that burden, the petitioner must show that he was domiciled in Georgia for the six months preceding his filing of the petition. Kuriatnyk v. Kuriatnyk, 286 Ga. 589, 590 1 690 SE2d 397 2010. We also have explained that, to show such domicile, the petitioner must prove that he maintained actual residence in Georgia during the relevant time and that he had an intent at that time to remain in Georgia indefinitely.3 Padron v. Padron, 281 Ga. 646, 646 641 SE2d 542 2007. See also Conrad v. Conrad, 278 Ga. 107, 108 597 SE2d 369 2004 “Domicile requires both act and intent to establish a residence, and either without the other is insufficient.” Citation and punctuation omitted. In this case, the trial court heard evidence on the domicile of the parties, and although some evidence pointed each way, the trial court found that Aaron “was here in Houston County for years and there was an intention to remain in this place for an indefinite period of time.” So long as any evidence appears in the record to support these findings, we must accept them. Rymuza v. Rymuza, 292 Ga. 98, 102 4 734 SE2d 384 2012.
