Jaimie Carboy filed a petition for a temporary family violence protective order against George Birchby pursuant to the Family Violence Act.1 The trial court granted the petition and entered a 12-month family violence protective order. Following the denial of his motion for new trial, Birchby filed an application for discretionary appeal, which this Court granted.2 On appeal, Birchby argues that the trial court erred by 1 entering a final judgment that did not conform to its verbal ruling; 2 failing to make specific written findings of fact and conclusions of law in the final order; 3 authorizing Carboy’s attorney to decide the child support amount set forth in the order; 4 concluding that it had no authority to withhold the transmission of the final order to the Georgia Protective Order Registry3; 5 failing to consider the parties’ pending divorce action; 6 denying Birchby’s request to reopen the evidence; and 7 denying Birchby’s motion for new trial. We affirm, for reasons that follow. Carboy filed a petition for a family violence temporary protective order pursuant to OCGA § 19-13-1 et seq., alleging that Birchby, her husband, kicked her in the ribs, pushed her, and intimidated her with his gun. Carboy sought temporary custody of their child, exclusive use and possession of the family residence, and child support, as well as a protective order enjoining Birchby from having contact with her or their child.
At the conclusion of a three-day hearing,4 the trial court gave a lengthy verbal ruling, stating therein that it had “serious concerns about the credibility of both parties based upon the evidence,” and noted that Carboy “may have been the instigator.” Nevertheless, the trial court concluded that “this is a family violence petition, and Carboy has proven . . . by a preponderance of the evidence that an incident occurred that constitutes family violence under the law. . . . The action of kicking Carboy in the chest constituted an act of family violence.” After describing the terms of the order, the trial court directed counsel for Carboy to prepare the order, noting that it would consider any objections or response thereto from counsel for Birchby. The subsequent “Family Violence Twelve Month Protective Order” ordered that Birchby “shall not contact, communicate, or come about Carboy’s residence or place of employment, or come within 500 yards of her except as may be necessary with regard to visitation or discussions regarding their child”; awarded Carboy exclusive use of the residence; awarded temporary child support; and prohibited Birchby from possessing a firearm. Birchby subsequently filed motions to reopen the evidence, for reconsideration, and for a new trial. Following a hearing, the trial court denied Birchby’s motions, and this appeal followed.