Joshua Broyles v. Fayth McNeal

── Joshua Broyles v. Fayth McNeal ── Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia Date: May 08, 2026 Category: General SECOND DIVISION DOYLE, P. J., DAVIS, J., and SENIOR JUDGE FULLER NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. https://www.gaappeals.us/rules May 8, 2026 In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A26A0384. BROYLES v. MCNEAL. DOYLE, Presiding Judge. Joshua Broyles, appearing pro se, appeals from the trial court’s order addressing his petition of legitimation as to his paternity of G. N. B. (“the child”) and granting sole physical and legal custody to the mother, Fayth McNeal; granting Broyles limited daytime-hour visitation; and ordering Broyles to direct the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) to transfer payment of the child’s Social Security Disability Insurance (“SSDI”) dependent benefit to McNeal rather than to him. Broyles argues that the trial court erred by limiting his visitation with the child and challenges the order of support and the child’s SSDI dependent benefit.1 For the reasons that follow, we vacate the order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. When reviewing an order in a child custody case, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s decision. We will not set aside the trial court’s factual findings if there is any evidence to support them, and we defer to the trial court’s credibility determinations. We review de novo, however, the legal conclusions the trial court draws from the facts. Mashburn v. Mashburn, 353 Ga. App. 31, 32 (836 SE2d 131) (2019) (citations omitted). So viewed, the record shows that Broyles filed a petition for legitimation in July 2024, requesting that the court legitimate him as the biological father of the child, who was about 14 months old at the time. Broyles also requested that he be granted liberal visitation or primary physical custody and shared legal custody, and he indicated that 1 McNeal argues that this appeal should be dismissed because Broyles failed to file a discretionary application. We decline to do so because this order is directly appealable based on Broyles’s challenge of the court’s award of full legal and physical custody to McNeal and of the limited visitation granted to him. See Voyles v. Voyles, 301 Ga. 44, 47 (799 SE2d 160) (2017) (“[T]he ‘issue-raised-on-appeal’ rule applies to appeals from orders or judgments in child custody cases. This means that the proper appellate procedure to employ depends upon the issue involved in the appeal, even if the order or judgment being challenged on appeal was of the type listed in OCGA § 5-6-34(a)(11) and was entered in a child custody case.”). 2 no child support order was in place at the time. In a counseled response, McNeal admitted that Broyles was the father, but requested sole legal and physical custody. The appellate record contains pictures of Broyles and the child during the various times he had cared for her; letters from his treating physician and therapist, which stated that although he was diagnosed with schizophrenia, Broyles was financially responsible and not a danger to himself or others; and copies of text messages between the parties related to Broyles’s visitation with the child, which visitation the parties had been facilitating themselves. Some of the messages indicated that Broyles was providing in-kind support, including baby food, diapers, and other supplies, which he gave to McNeal. Additionally, there are copies of a letter showing that Broyles’s delivery-driver account had been cancelled as well as evidence of the amounts of his car insurance and rent. McNeal provided a d