GODFREY v. GODFREY, 239 Ga. 707

Bowles, Justice. This is an appeal from the granting of a change of child custody in the Superior Court of Cobb County. The parties were divorced in March, 1976,and the appellant, Mrs. Godfrey, awarded custody of the couple’s only child. A complaint was filed on November 3, 1976, wherein the appellee, Mr. Godfrey, alleged that a substantial change in conditions affecting the welfare of the minor child had occurred since the final judgment and decree had been entered.

The case was heard before a Judge of the Superior Court of Cobb County at which time evidence was introduced which clearly showed that appellant had been living with a married man in her home for several months subsequent to the divorce. The evidence further showed that appellant’s relationship with her consort had on several occasions interfered with appellee’s visitation rights.

After hearing all the evidence the court concluded that the appellant in opening up her home and creating a family relationship with a married man and in living with this man in a state of adultery in the presence of the child created a substantial change which affected the welfare of the child and warranted a change of custody to the appellee.

In her appeal to this court, the appellant enumerates as error the trial court’s verdict that there were changed conditions in the appellant’s home which had an adverse effect upon the parties’ minor child in that this verdict was unsupported by the evidence and was an abuse of the trial court’s discretion. In Robinson v.

Ashmore, 232 Ga. 499, 500 (207 SE2d 484) (1974), this court stated, "Changed conditions affecting the welfare of a child occurring after the rendition of a formal final custody judgment which will warrant the issuance of a new judgment by habeas corpus court effecting a change of custody or visitation rights is essentially a fact issue in each individual case which must be decided by the habeas corpus court.

And if there is 'reasonable evidence’ in the record to support the decision made by the habeas corpus court in changing custody or visitation rights, then the decision of the habeas corpus court must prevail as a final judgment, and it will be affirmed on appeal.” Argued July 11, 1977 Decided September 7, 1977 Rehearing denied September 28, 1977. Duard R. McDonald, Don Smith, for appellant. Barnes & Browning, Thomas J. Browning, Roy E. Barnes, for appellee.

We have carefully reviewed the evidence in this case and after finding that there was "reasonable evidence” in the record to support the verdict we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in changing custody of the minor child to the appellee. Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur, except Hall, J., who dissents.