A good number of people choose to represent themselves in family law cases. With resources such as the Fulton County Family Law Information Center providing workshops and access to the necessary forms and instructions, pro se litigants often have the information they need to effectively represent themselves. Appeals cases, however, are a totally different ballgame, and it is much more difficult to have success as a pro se appellant due to the specific requirements in the appellate courts.
The Court of Appeals of Georgia just heard an appeal from a custody modification case wherein the mother/Appellant represented herself. Floyd v. Brown, A16A1034, August 12, 2016. In that case, the mother was awarded sole legal and physical custody of the two children after the parties’ divorce. After the mother was incarcerated for aggravated assault, aggravated battery, and cruelty to children following an incident with one of her other children, the children were placed in the father’s temporary custody. The father subsequently filed a complaint for modification of custody, seeking sole legal and physical custody of the children. After a hearing, the trial court found that it was in the best interests of the children for the father to have custody and, thus, granted his modification petition.
The mother appealed pro se to the Court of Appeals of Georgia, but did not follow the stringent requirements of the Court of Appeals in her appellate brief. The Court pointed out “proceeding pro se does not relieve [the mother] of [her] obligation to comply with the rules of this Court.” Id, quoting Goodman v. State, 313 Ga. App. 290, 291 (717 SE2d 496) (2011). However, the Court also pointed out that appellate courts have a “statutory duty to discern what errors an appellant is attempting to articulate.” Felix v. State, 271 Ga. 534, 538 *523 SE2d 1) (1999). Therefore, even though the mother in this case failed to abide by the rules required for appellate briefs, the Court is still required to attempt to figure out what error the appellant is claiming the trial court has made. Mindful of this requirement, the Court of Appeals stated that the mother appears to assert that the custody modification was granted in error. However, there was no argument or authority in the brief to back up this allegation. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals had no choice but to assume there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s findings and affirm the judgment.
This case shows the importance of having an attorney who is knowledgeable in appellate proceedings represent you in any appellate matter. While it is certainly understandable that litigants want to save money wherever possible, the appellate rules are such that you need someone with experience to guide you to have the best chance of success.