This appeal is from a final decree of divorce awarding custody of the parties’ minor child to her mother, Rouviere. The parties are French citizens who have resided in the United States since before they married in 2000. LaFont filed for divorce in 2005 when the child was three years old and obtained an interim order giving him exclusive custody. After a period of de facto shared custody, the trial court formalized that arrangement. At the bench trial of their divorce, the parties produced conflicting evidence regarding their conduct and fitness as parents. In a post-trial interim order, the trial court awarded full custody of their child to LaFont, but the final decree awarded joint legal custody with physical custody being awarded to Rouviere, including permission to move to France to live. LaFont’s timely-filed application for discretionary review of the final judgment and decree of divorce was granted in accordance with this Court’s Family Law Pilot Project, pursuant to which this Court grants all non-frivolous applications seeking discretionary review of a final judgment and decree of divorce. Maddox v. Maddox , 278 Ga. 606, n. 1 604 SE2d 784 2004. 1. Although the parties waived findings of fact, the trial court set out a brief recitation of facts regarding the issues of custody, visitation, and support, reading in pertinent part as follows:The Mother has no employment in the United States and is not, at this time, able to procure gainful employment in the Untied States. . . . The Court, through the testimony of the parties, witnesses, and in speaking with the minor child, is aware of the special bond that exists between this child and her Mother and the extensive amount of time the Child has spent in France with her Mother from the time of her birth until the present. There is no question that the child is bonded to her Mother and her nuclear family, and that the Mother of the child has been the primary caretaker and custodian of the Child for the majority of the Child’s life. Furthermore, the child has a special relationship with the Mother’s extended family in France.In five enumerations of error, LaFont takes issue with the trial court’s findings of fact. Those enumerations “amount to a challenge of the trial court’s assessment of the evidence. ‘In the appellate review of a bench trial, this Court will not set aside the trial court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous, and this Court properly gives due deference to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.’ Cit.” Frazier v. Frazier , 280 Ga. 687 4 631 SE2d 666 2006. “Furthermore, since the clearly erroneous test is the same as the any evidence rule, we will not disturb factfindings of the trial court if there is any evidence to sustain them.” Delbello v. Bilyeu , 274 Ga. 776 1 560 SE2d 3 2002 punctuation and citations omitted.
Regarding her employment prospects in the United States, Rouviere presented evidence that she did not have a permit to work in the United States at the time of trial. Testimony that the child went to France with her mother each summer and has spent approximately one-third of her life in France supported the trial court’s statement about “the extensive amount of time the Child has spent in France with her Mother from the time of her birth until the present.” Rouviere’s testimony about her daughter’s relationship with Rouviere’s father and his provision of child care while Rouviere worked with her mother, and about her daughter’s time spent with Rouviere’s family in France supported the trial court’s statements about the bond and special relationship between the child and Rouviere’s family. Rouviere and a psychiatrist chosen by the guardian ad litem to evaluate the parties and their child testified that Rouviere had been the primary caretaker of the child, and Rouviere’s testimony supported the existence of a close bond between her and her daughter. Since there was some evidence supporting each of the statements with which LaFont takes issue, the findings made by the trial court in this case were not clearly erroneous and we will not disturb them.
