MCFADDEN, P. J., RICKMAN and MARKLE, JJ.
MCFADDEN, PRESIDING JUDGE.
Long and Duane Truex divorced in 2014. These related appeals,
in which Long is acting pro se, concern trial court rulings
in two subsequent proceedings arising out of the divorce: a
proceeding to modify child custody and a contempt proceeding.
No. A19A0038, Long challenges an August 4, 2016 order
modifying child custody and an April 11, 2018 order denying
Long's timely motion for new trial. We have jurisdiction
notwithstanding Long's ineffective attempt to dismiss her
motion for new trial. The evidence authorized the trial
court's rulings, so we affirm.
No. A19A0749, Long challenges a July 6, 2018 order awarding
Truex attorney fees related to Long's filing of an
untimely motion for new trial after the trial court found her
in contempt of the parties' divorce decree. Because that
order does not specify the person or persons obligated to pay
the award, we vacate it and remand the case for further
proceedings. We also deny Truex's motion for sanctions
for frivolous appeal in Case No. A19A0749.
Child custody order (Case No. A19A0038).
the parties divorced in the fall of 2014, the trial court
awarded them joint legal custody and the father primary
physical custody of their son, C. T. The following spring,
Long petitioned to modify child custody to obtain primary
physical custody of C. T., alleging that there had been
material changes in the conditions and circumstances that
warranted this modification. Truex filed a separate
modification petition, seeking to obtain sole legal custody
of C. T. and to change Long's visitation. The trial court
consolidated the proceedings. The trial court temporarily
awarded sole custody of C. T. to Truex during the pendency of
an evidentiary hearing, the trial court awarded Truex sole
legal and physical custody of then-12-year-old C. T. and held
that Long's visitation must be supervised. Long appeals
from this ruling and from the trial court's denial of her
motion for new trial, arguing that the evidence did not
support the modification.
initial matter, we consider our jurisdiction over the appeal
in Case No. A19A0038. See generally Ford v. Ford,
347 Ga.App. 233 (818 S.E.2d 690) (2018) (appellate court has
duty to inquire into its jurisdiction to review errors
enumerated on appeal). "A notice of appeal shall be
filed within 30 days of the entry of the appealable decision
or judgment complained of; but when a motion for new trial .
. . has been filed, the notice shall be filed within 30 days
after the entry of the order granting, overruling, or
otherwise finally disposing of the motion." OCGA §
the trial court entered the order modifying custody, Long
filed a timely motion for new trial. She subsequently filed a
notice to dismiss that motion. But "OCGA § 5-6-38
requires a trial court order granting, denying, or
otherwise finally disposing of a party's motion for new
trial[.] A party's voluntary withdrawal of its motion for
new trial, standing alone, is not the statutorily-required
court order finally disposing of the motion for new
trial." Heard v. State, 274 Ga. 196, 197 (1)
(552 S.E.2d 818) (2001) (citations omitted; emphasis in
original). The record in this case does not contain a trial
court order connected with Long's notice to dismiss her
timely motion for new trial. So, under the rule articulated
in Heard, the that motion remained pending. The
trial court finally disposed of the motion later, when he
entered an order that denied Long a new trial. At that point,
Long had 30 days in which to file her notice of appeal under
OCGA § 5-6-38 (a), and she filed her notice of appeal
within the 30-day period. We therefore have jurisdiction to
review the order modifying custody.
Sufficiency of evidence supporting custody
decision on child custody includes visitation rights. See
OCGA § 19-9-22 (1); Vines v. Vines, 292 Ga.
550, 551 (2) (739 S.E.2d 374) (2013). When ruling on a
petition for modification of child custody, the trial court
is charged with exercising its discretion to determine what
is in the child's best interest. A trial court's
decision regarding a change in custody/visitation will be
upheld on appeal unless it is shown that the court clearly
abused its discretion. Where there is any evidence to support
the trial ...