|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||
|
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Burns v. BurnsBurns v. Burns, In this case, a divorced couple entered into a consent decree in which they agreed that neither party would be allowed overnight visitation with the children while they were cohabiting with someone to whom they were not married or related. Subsequently, the mother contracted a Vermont civil union and the father moved for an order of contempt when the mother had visits with the children while living with her partner. The trial court held that a civil union did not make the partner related and that therefore, the mother was in contempt of the consent order. The court of appeals identified the sole issue in the case as whether the trial court erred in its enforcement of the consent order. A panel of the Georgia Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the lower court decision. The court of appeals held that a Vermont civil union was not a marriage and that even if the couple had been able to enter a same-sex "marriage," it would not be recognized as legally valid in Georgia given the Georgia state marriage recognition law, the federal Defense of Marriage Act and the fact that the definition of marriage is a question to be left to the legislature rather than the judiciary. The court further dismissed the mother's right of privacy claim, holding that she had waived that right when she agreed to the consent order. The court thus concluded that the consent order was valid and that violation of the order constituted contempt. Case Files
Related News Articles Georgia Court of Appeals Hesitant to Recognize Civil Union (Oct. 12, 2001) Georgia Appellate Court Affirms Marriage and
|
|
|
|||||
 |
||||||||
| Copyright © 2001 - 2009 The Catholic University of America. | ||||||||
 |
||||||||
