DILLARD, Judge.
Darby Norman ("Darby") appeals the trial court's order finding her in contempt of a settlement agreement that she entered into with her ex-husband, Toby Norman ("Toby"), as part of the parties' divorce decree, and denying her motion to strike the overnightguest provision in that agreement. She contends on appeal that the trial court erred by (1) enforcing the overnight-guest provision when it violates public policy, and (2) misinterpreting binding precedent. For the reasons set forth infra, we affirm.
The record reflects that the Normans divorced in February 2013, and that a settlement agreement entered into by the parties in January 2013 was thereafter incorporated into their final judgment and decree of divorce. The settlement agreement awarded the parties' joint legal custody and Darby primary physical custody of the Normans' two minor daughters, and included, in relevant part, the following provision:
On March 28, 2013 (only one month after entry of the divorce decree), Toby filed a complaint for contempt against his ex-wife, alleging that Darby had repeatedly violated this provision by allowing her boyfriend to stay in her home overnight while she was in physical custody of the children. In response, Darby filed a motion to strike the provision from the decree, arguing that the provision was "overly broad, overly burdensome, and unenforceable under the circumstances."
Following a hearing at which neither party testified, but after which the trial court considered deposition testimony filed by the parties, the trial court determined that Darby had admitted to violating the overnight-guest provision and that the violation of this provision by either party "would be harmful to the minor children's emotional well-being." In reaching its conclusion, the trial court noted that Darby understood and agreed to inclusion of the provision in the settlement agreement with the advice of counsel, and that at least one of the parties' daughters was aware of the provision and that her mother was in violation of it by engaging in prohibited behavior, which the trial court determined was knowledge "detrimental to the children's emotional well-being."
Darby contends that the trial court erred in enforcing the overnight-guest provision because it violates public policy and because the court misinterpreted binding precedent. We disagree.
Although Darby is correct that it is the express public policy in Georgia to "encourage that a child has continuing contact with parents ... who have shown the ability to act in the best interest of the child and to encourage parents to share in the rights and responsibilities of raising their child after such parents have separated or dissolved their marriage or relationship,"
The overnight-guest provision quoted supra is neither overly broad nor unduly burdensome. Indeed, this provision applies to both parties and prohibits unrelated overnight adult guests of the opposite gender — a restriction that neither singles out one particular individual for a blanket prohibition nor includes relatives. As such, it is distinguishable from provisions imposed by trial courts that this Court and our Supreme Court have deemed overly broad and/or unduly burdensome, and thus unenforceable, in the absence of a showing of harm.
Finally, Darby contends that the trial court erred in enforcing the overnight-guest provision when there was no showing of harm justifying such a restriction. This argument is a nonstarter. Indeed, even without the trial court's explicit finding that these children would be harmed if the provision went unenforced,
Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the trial court did not err in enforcing the overnight-guest provision or in holding Darby in contempt for violating same,
Judgment affirmed.
DOYLE, P.J., and MILLER, J., concur.
According to Toby's deposition testimony, the parties "argued about [the exception] several days before the decree to try to get that in the decree, and [he] finally agreed to [it]." As such, the fact that Darby now argues that the inclusion of this exception renders the overnight-guest provision arbitrary appears disingenuous at best. Further, we are wholly unconvinced that a prohibition against overnight stays by "non-relative members of the opposite sex" can be read as prohibiting the presence of cousins, uncles, nephews, or relatives by marriage. Cf. Ward, 289 Ga. at 250-51(1), 710 S.E.2d 555 (agreeing with appellant that prohibition against "overnight male guests" would prohibit mother from "having visitors with whom she has no romantic relationship," including her father, a brother, a new spouse, or the children's father).
