Appellant Alyce Stoddard “Mother” and appellee Charles D. Meyer “Father” were divorced in 2007. By the terms of their divorce decree, Mother had primary physical custody of the couple’s minor son, Father had regular visitation five nights out of every fourteen days, plus defined holiday and summer visits, and Father paid Mother $200 monthly in child support. The parties concede that after entry of the divorce decree, they mutually implemented a different visitation arrangement whereby the child was in the custody of each parent an equal amount of time one week on/one week off. This mutual arrangement continued for a period of approximately three years. In November 2010, Father petitioned the court for a modification of custody such that the parties had joint physical custody of the child and for a modification of child support such that Mother, who had the higher income of the two parents, would be required to pay Father the difference between his support obligation and her support obligation. Mother counterclaimed for a modification increasing Father’s child support obligation. While the case was pending, the parties reverted back to the visitation schedule set forth in the divorce decree. A trial was held on the modification petition in August 2011. In September 2011, the trial court issued a final order allowing Mother to retain primary physical custody of the child. The trial court also modified the visitation schedule such that it mirrored the parties’ mutual arrangement of equal parenting time. The order also required Mother to pay monthly child support to Father in the amount of $667, which was the difference between Mother’s support obligation of $1,037 and Father’s support obligation of $370, as delineated in the trial court’s child support worksheet pursuant to OCGA §19-6-15 b.
Mother subsequently moved for “reconsideration”1 of the trial court’s decision regarding her obligation to pay child support to Father. She argued that because she had been designated as the primary physical custodian, she was not required to pay child support to Father. The trial court held a hearing to consider Mother’s motion. In December 2011, the trial court modified its final order for the purposes of child support only and designated Father as the custodial parent pursuant to OCGA §19-6-15 a 9,2 and Mother as the non-custodial parent per OCGA §19-6-15 a 14.3 The trial court concluded that Mother was still obligated to pay child support to Father. On appeal, Mother maintains the trial court erred when it ordered her to pay monthly child support to Father. For reasons that follow, we affirm.
