SECOND DIVISION
DOYLE, P. J.,
DAVIS and WHITAKER, JJ.
NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be
received no later than 4:30 pm on the 10th day after
the decision was issued to be deemed timely filed.
https://www.gaappeals.gov/rules
October 16, 2026
In the Court of Appeals of Georgia
A26A0864. WALLACE v. BUFFINGTON.
DOYLE, Presiding Judge.
Proceeding pro se, Essie Wallace (“the Mother”) appeals from the trial court’s
order granting a motion for modification of child custody and child support filed by
Jason Buffington (“the Father”) regarding H. B., the soon-to-be ten-year-old child of
the parents. The Mother argues that the trial court erred in several respects.1 For the
reasons that follow, we affirm in part and vacate in part.
When reviewing an order in a child custody case, we view the
evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s decision. We will
not set aside the trial court’s factual findings if there is any evidence to
support them, and we defer to the trial court’s credibility
1
The Father has not filed an appellate brief.
determinations. We review de novo, however, the legal conclusions the
trial court draws from the facts.
Mashburn v. Mashburn, 353 Ga. App. 31, 32 (836 SE2d 131) (2019) (citation modified).
Viewed in this light, the record shows that H. B. was born on December 13,
2016, and in September 2019, the trial court entered a consent final order for
legitimation, custody, and child support as a result of the Father’s petition for
legitimation. The 2019 order awarded the parties joint legal custody of H. B. and
awarded the Mother primary physical custody and final decision-making authority.
The 2019 order also provided that the Father would pay $559 in child support each
month. The order found that the Father previously had been ordered to pay more per
month, but had a change in financial condition; it also found that the Father had a
$2,330.24 arrearage, and ordered him to pay an additional $141 per month. The 2019
order set visitation for the Father and ordered it be supervised until he completed a
family violence intervention program. The order also noted that the Father was on
probation, and if he should be incarcerated for any reason or fail to comply with any
probation requirements, his visitation would be suspended immediately “until further
order of this court.”
2
On December 17, 2024, the Father filed a counseled petition for modification
of custody and child support and for contempt, alleging a material change in
circumstance based on the Mother’s plan to move to Alabama, and claiming that she
did not have stable income, had thwarted his ability to have a relationship with H. B.,
did not communicate with him about H. B., and denied him his parenting time. The
Father requested primary physical custody, modification of child support, and
attorney fees.
In her pro se answer, the Mother admitted that she was planning to move, but
she alleged that the Father’s parenting time had been suspended automatically
pursuant to the 2019 order because the Father had been arrested. The Mother also
alleged that the Father lacked secure housing and was living with his parents, had
failed to pay back child support as directed in the 2019 order, and failed to pay some
support subsequent to the 2019 order, resulting in a total arrearage of $3,931.38 as well
as an arrearage to the Division of Child Support Services of $1,944.37. The Mother
contended that she should remain the primary physical custodian because H. B. was
living with her and H. B.’s half-sister; H. B. did well in school and participated in
3
extra-curricular activities; and the Mother was an involved parent to H. B. and her
half-sister.
Thereafter, the Mother acquired counsel, who filed an amended answer and
police records, including a 2020 guilty plea by the Father to family violence battery
perpetrated against the Mother. The answer reiterated that because the Father had
been arrested since the 2019 order, the Mother had the right to suspend his visitation;
it also stated that the Mother had obtained a job in Alabama necessitating the move.
The amended answer requested the continued suspension of the Father’s visitation
or, alternatively, supervised visitation; attorney fees; immediate payment of the
support arrearage; and dismissal of the Father’s petition. The Mother also filed a
domestic relations financial affidavit, showing her income from child support for each
of her children.
On April 2, 2025, the trial court entered a temporary consent order keeping
primary physical custody with the Mother but awarding the Father certain specific
weekend visitation during which (1) he and the child would stay at the paternal
grandmother’s home; and (2) he would transport the child to scheduled extra4
curricular activities during visitation. The order found that the Father had a current
support arrearage of $6,117.00.
On April 24, 2025, the Mother petitioned for contempt of the temporary order,
stating that the Father had failed to take the child to certain scheduled girl scout
events, resulting in her disqualification from a free summer trip. A second temporary
order was entered, outlining summer visitation and an agreement by the Father to pay
for the scout trip. The Father also filed a domestic relations financial affidavit.
After a hearing, the trial court entered a final order, awarding joint legal custody
but transferring primary physical custody to the Father. The court also awarded the
Father final decision making as to all non-emergency issues. The court assigned a
visitation schedule for the Mother of visitation every other weekend and certain
holidays and summer weeks. The court attached a child support worksheet, directing
the Mother to begin paying child support to the Father in February 2027, after
applying a credit for the Father’s existing arrearage. Thereafter, the Mother filed this
pro se appeal.
The Mother’s pro se brief, which does not comport with this Court’s rules,
argues that the trial court was unfair, biased, and issued an order contrary to the
5
evidence, overlooking evidence of the Mother’s involvement, the Father’s neglect and
history of family violence convictions, drug abuse, and failure to pay child support.
She maintains that the order is contrary to H. B.’s best interests, resulting in
separation from her half-sister and in the paternal grandparents being the primary
caregivers. Finally, the Mother contends that the Thanksgiving break visitation
provision, Christmas break visitation provision, lack of a provision designating
visitation for February school break, and the failure to award her the Father’s child
support arrearage are erroneous.
As an initial matter, the Mother has failed to provide a transcript of the hearing,
and her brief does not comply with this Court’s rules, lacking separately enumerated
errors and citations to authority or the record. If
an appeal is taken which draws in question the transcript of the evidence
and proceedings, it shall be the duty of the appellant to have the
transcript prepared at the appellant’s expense. ... [The Mother], as the
appellant here, bears the burden of showing error below. In accordance
with the presumption of the regularity of court proceedings, [this Court]
must assume in the absence of a transcript that there was sufficient
competent evidence to support the trial court’s findings.
6
Reed v. Reed, 295 Ga. 574, 577–78(2) (761 SE2d 326) (2014) (citation modified).
Moreover, although the Mother is pro se, it was still incumbent on her to provide
citations to the record and to applicable case law to support her appellate arguments.
See Colclough v. Dep’t of Human Servs., 367 Ga. App. 567, 570(1) (887 SE2d 407)
(2023) (“It is the appellant’s burden, as the party challenging the ruling below, to
affirmatively show error from the record on appeal.”(citation modified)). Cf. Lewis
v. State, 330 Ga. App. 650, 652 (768 SE2d 821) (2015) (“A party is not held to a
different or more lenient standard merely because [she] elected to proceed pro se. One
who knowingly elects to represent [her]self assumes full responsibility for complying
with the substantive and procedural requirements of the law.” (citation modified)).
The majority of the errors raised by the Mother are not subject to reversal by
this Court given the presumption of regularity on appeal, the lack of a transcript, and
the lack of legal citations. See Soto v. Daniels, 378 Ga. App. 176, 179(1)(b) (924 SE2d
796) (2025) (explaining that “a trial court has broad discretion when deciding which
parent is entitled to custody of their child and that ‘it is the duty of the trial judge to
resolve the conflicts in the evidence’”). See also Reed, 295 Ga. at 577–78(2);
Colclough, 367 Ga. App. at 570(1); Mashburn, 353 Ga. App. at 32. Nevertheless, the
7
plain language of the order supports her contention that the court erred in some
respects.
We note that the modification order “did not comply with the requirements of
OCGA § 19-9-1 because it did not (1) include an explicit recognition that a close and
continuing parent-child relationship and continuity in the child[ ]’s life would be in
[her] best interest, [or] (2) include an explicit recognition that the child[ ]’s needs
would change and grow as [she] matured[.]” Pryce v. Pryce, 359 Ga. App. 590, 592(1)
(859 SE2d 554) (2021). Additionally, there are errors that should be corrected as
follows.
The Thanksgiving visitation provision separates odd and even years, and it
assigns the Father a different span of visitation during odd years (from 6:00 p.m.
before Thanksgiving to 4:00 p.m. on Thanksgiving) as compared to even years (from
4:00 p.m. on Thanksgiving to 6:00 p.m. the day after Thanksgiving). It also states that
the regular parenting schedule applies to the weekends before and after Thanksgiving
break. Given that the Father has primary physical custody, the most logical reading
of the Thanksgiving provision is that the trial court intended to award the Mother
physical custody of H. B. during the week of Thanksgiving break (exclusive of
8
weekends) and award the Father limited visitation as stated depending on whether the
year is odd or even. Reading the provision otherwise results in the Father having
visitation during his own custody, and the Mother having no Thanksgiving visitation,
which is incongruent with the custody awards for most holidays and Fall and Spring
breaks that rotate between the parents.
The same issue arises with the Christmas break visitation provision, which
assigns the Mother limited Christmas break visitation in even years from 9:00 a.m. on
December 24 until 6:00 p.m. on December 26; the provision assigns this same limited
visitation time to the Father in odd years. With regard to this provision, the most
logical reading is that the Mother would have limited visitation from 9:00 a.m. on
December 24 until 6:00 p.m. on December 26 in even years, but that the Mother
would have custody for the entire Christmas break during odd years during which time
the Father would exercise that limited visitation from December 24–26. Because the
Father has primary physical custody, there was no reason for the court to say that he
has specific visitation in odd years unless the court had intended for the Mother to
have custody of H. B. during the remainder of the break those years. The order also
lacks a definition specifying the period constituting Christmas break.
9
Although these are the most logical ways to read these provisions, it is not
entirely clear what the court meant with either. Thus, we vacate the order as to those
provisions and remand for clarification. Although the Mother also argues that the trial
court erred by failing to grant her visitation during the one-week February/Winter
school break, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to do
so; however, because we are remanding the case for clarification of the Christmas and
Thanksgiving provisions, the court may clarify whether visitation for the
February/Winter break was inadvertently omitted from the parenting plan.
The other issue relates to the child support provision. In the order, the trial
court directed the Mother to begin paying $229 per month on November 1, 2025.
Later in the order, the trial court found that the Father had an arrearage of $3,684.35
and assigned a child support credit to the Mother of $229 per month, moving the start
date of her payments to February 1, 2027. The Mother should have been ordered to
begin paying child support on March 1, 2027, and the March 2027 payment should be
discounted by $20.35 to $208.64 to account for the remainder of the arrearage credit
rather than $229, which amount the Mother would begin paying on April 1, 2027.
Otherwise, the credit provided contradicts the trial court’s arrearage finding.
10
Accordingly, we vacate the order as to that provision and remand for
clarification or correction thereof consistent with this opinion.
Judgment affirmed in part and vacated in part, and case remanded with direction.
Davis and Whitaker, JJ., concur.
11