In this Pilot Project domestic relations case, appellant Frank Larizza appeals from the final judgment of divorce, challenging only the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the monthly child support awarded to appellee Amanda Larizza for the couple’s four-year-old child. A bench trial was conducted but the proceedings were not transcribed. At the hearing on appellant’s motion for reconsideration, appellant asserted for the first time that he has no income other than supplemental security income “SSI” benefits excluded by statute from child support calculations. OCGA § 19-6-15 f 2 B iii. The trial court expressly stated that it would amend its ruling to exclude those benefits. Then, after noting that appellant had represented himself at the bench trial and was capable of driving a car, the trial court stated it would impute to appellant the ability to earn an income of $450 a month. Subsequently, in the schedules attached to its written order, the trial court clarified that, despite appellant’s disabilities, he still has the ability to obtain funds with which to support the child and that it was imputing a monthly income of $1,100 “which consists of funds which appellant can obtain through family assistance, plus part-time employment earning minimum wage of $6.55 per hour,” but without imputing any specific amount of earned income to appellant. See generally Carroll v. Finova Cap. Corp. , 265 Ga. App. 517 594 SE2d 720 2004 trial court’s written order prevails over court’s oral conclusions made during hearing. 1. Appellant asserts that the trial court’s child support order violates OCGA § 19-6-15 f 2 B iii because the SSI benefits are his sole income and thus he cannot be liable for any amount of child support. Because the record clearly establishes that the trial court on reconsideration granted appellant’s motion as to the SSI benefits and excluded those benefits from its final child support calculations, this enumeration is meritless.
2. Appellant contends the trial court erred by imputing other income to him. Appellant focuses exclusively on the trial court’s finding that he is capable of performing an unspecified amount of part-time work.1 Appellant first argues that the trial court erred by imputing part-time work income to him under OCGA § 19-6-15 f 4 because the court failed to utilize either subsection f 4 A or f 4 D of that statute. While the provisions of OCGA § 19-6-15 are mandatory and must be considered by a trier of fact setting the amount of child support, Evans v. Evans , 285 Ga. 319 676 SE2d 180 2009, the record reveals that the trial court, in its order and attached schedules, made all of the specific written findings required by the statute. We thus find no merit in this argument.
