Angela Enslen Rembert “Wife” appeals from the trial court’s order denying her motion for a new trial in her divorce from David John Rembert “Husband”.1 For the reasons that follow, we affirm. The couple was married in 1998, and had two children, one born in 2001, and one in 2003. Wife filed a complaint for divorce on July 28, 2006. After a hearing, a final judgement and decree of divorce was entered on September 24, 2007; it gave Husband and Wife joint legal custody of the children, named Husband the primary physical custodian, and stated that he would have final decision making authority on all matters involving the children, “including the school they attend, membership in organizations, and other extracurricular activities.”2 Wife moved for a new trial, and the trial court amended its order, specifying that the parties were to participate equally in making major decisions regarding the children, “as required under OCGA § 19-9-6 2,” and that Husband was not to exercise his authority to make final decisions on these types of major issues without discussing them with Wife and taking into account her views and recommendations. The court later entered an order denying the motion for new trial.
1. Wife contends that the trial court’s order is infirm because it purports to grant joint legal custody but does not actually do so, in that “full” decision-making authority rests with Husband. First, the court’s order states that Husband has “final” decision-making authority. Second, under OCGA § 19-9-6 2, “joint legal custody” means both parents have equal rights and responsibilities for major decisions concerning the child, including the child’s education, health care, extracurricular activities, and religious training; provided, however, that the judge may designate one parent to have sole power to make certain decisions while both parents retain equal rights and responsibilities for other decisions. “The language of that statute clearly vests in the trial court discretion to decide which parent should be empowered to make final decisions where the parents are unable to agree.” Frazier v. Frazier , 280 Ga. 687, 690 3 631 SE2d 666 2006. As in Frazier , these parties disagree regarding the children’s education. Here, Husband wants the children to attend the private school in which they had been enrolled for several years, while Wife wants them to attend a school in a neighboring county. Thus, it is unlikely that they will agree on these issues; the need to designate a final decision-maker is apparent; and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in selecting the primary custodial parent as that decision-maker. Id.
