McAlister v. Clifton

Erin McAlister and Wendi Clifton were former domestic partners who separated. Clifton, who never formally adopted McAlister's daughter Catherine but had raised her, sought visitation rights under Georgia's equitable caregiver law after the couple split. A DeKalb County trial judge ruled the law constitutional and granted Clifton visitation, and also rejected McAlister's counterclaim that Clifton owed her money under their separation settlement agreement for Catherine's private school tuition. McAlister appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia, arguing the caregiver law was unconstitutional and that the trial court wrongly denied her money claim. By the time the case reached the court, Catherine had turned 18. The court held that because Catherine was now legally an adult, the visitation dispute and constitutional question were moot, so it wiped out those parts of the trial court's rulings and sent the case back to be dismissed. But it upheld the denial of McAlister's counterclaim because she never proved she actually paid the disputed tuition costs.

Because the child had reached the age of 18, McAlister's challenge to the equitable caregiver statute and the visitation award were moot, requiring those portions of the trial court's orders to be vacated and the visitation claim dismissed; the denial of McAlister's breach of contract counterclaim was upheld because she failed to prove she suffered any actual damages, an essential element of a breach of contract claim.

The ruling shows that Georgia courts will not decide constitutional challenges to the equitable caregiver statute once the child involved becomes an adult, leaving the law's constitutionality unresolved for now. It also warns parents seeking reimbursement under settlement agreements that they must document actual payments, not just claim them.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with direction

1. The court explained that mootness is a jurisdictional issue that must be resolved before reaching the merits: a case becomes moot when deciding it would only answer an abstract question no longer tied to real, existing rights.
2. Because Catherine turned 18 and reached legal adulthood while the appeal was pending, she was no longer subject to a custody or visitation order under Georgia law, so the dispute over her visitation and the underlying constitutional challenge to the equitable caregiver statute no longer affected any live right.
3. The court considered whether any recognized circumstances kept the issue alive despite mootness, such as an issue 'capable of repetition yet evading review,' but found the constitutionality of the caregiver statute could always be raised again in future cases and reviewed normally, so it did not evade review.
4. The court also rejected a 'significant public concern' argument for deciding the moot constitutional question, since trial courts remain free to address the statute's constitutionality whenever it is raised, so there was no special urgency requiring immediate resolution.
5. On the separate counterclaim, the court applied the basic rule that a breach of contract claim requires proof of a breach and resulting damages; McAlister could not produce cancelled checks, receipts, or other proof that she actually paid Catherine's tuition beyond what scholarships covered.
6. Because McAlister's own witnesses could not confirm she personally paid the disputed amounts and the trial judge questioned her credibility, the court found the record supported denying her counterclaim for failure to prove damages.

• equitable caregiver statute
• child visitation rights
• mootness doctrine
• settlement agreement dispute
• tuition reimbursement