Angela Haskell Wife and Brian Haskell Husband were married in 2001, and their only child was born in 2004. When the child was three years old, Wife brought this divorce action and was awarded temporary primary physical custody. In May 2008, she moved to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. After a final hearing in September 2008, the trial court entered a final divorce decree providing for joint legal custody and awarding primary physical custody to Husband. The 30-page final judgment contains extensive findings of fact, analysis, and conclusions of law on the issue of custody. The trial court applied the factors set forth in OCGA § 19-9-3 a 3 and referred to this Court’s decision in Bodne v. Bodne , 277 Ga. 445588 SE2d 728 2003. “Considering the Bodne factors and all other relevant factors, including OCGA § 19-9-3, and based upon the specific facts and circumstances of this case,” the trial court concluded “that the best interests of the child are served by awarding primary physical custody to Husband and secondary custody ‘visitation’ to Wife.” Wife applied for a discretionary appeal, which we granted pursuant to our Pilot Project in divorce cases. 1. Wife contends that the trial court’s award of primary physical custody to Husband is based on erroneous findings of fact and a misapplication of Bodne , and does not serve the best interests of the child. Where, as here, the trial court has exercised its discretion and awarded custody of children to one fit parent over the other fit parent, this Court will not interfere with that decision unless the evidence shows the trial court clearly abused its discretion. Cit. Where there is any evidence to support the decision of the trial court, this Court cannot say there was an abuse of discretion. Cit. Welch v. Welch , 277 Ga. 808, 809 596 SE2d 134 2004. ” ‘It is the duty of the trial judge to resolve the conflicts in the evidence . . . .’ Cit.” Urquhart v. Urquhart , 272 Ga. 548, 549 1 533 SE2d 80 2000. In considering a wide range of factors, the trial court here correctly avoided any presumption against relocation and adhered to
the public policy requirement set forth in OCGA § 19-9-3 that the primary consideration of the trial court in deciding custody matters must be directed to the best interests of the child involved, that all other rights are secondary, and that any determination of the best interests of the child must be made on a case-by-case basis. . . . We conclude that the order of the trial court reflects that when making its custodial determination based on the best interests of the children standard, it appropriately considered the myriad factors that had a impact on the child as established by the evidence adduced before it. Bodne v. Bodne , supra at 446-447. Ample evidence, including the child’s close relationship with his father, continued use of the same speech therapist, and other evidence related to stability, continuity, and the child’s adjustment to relocation, “supports the trial court’s award of custody to Husband. Accordingly, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in making the award.” Welch v. Welch , supra. See also Hammond v. Hammond , 282 Ga. 456, 457 1 651 SE2d 95 2007.
