Tashika M. Robinson v. Darrell T. London, Jr.

── Tashika M. Robinson v. Darrell T. London, Jr. ── Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia Date: May 12, 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.gov/rules May 12, 2026 In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A26A0676. ROBINSON v. LONDON. DAVIS, Judge. In this child custody dispute, Tashika Robinson, pro se, appeals from the trial court’s order dismissing her “petition to domesticate and register custody and child support and modification of visitation and child support, and citation for contempt of court.” On appeal, Robinson argues that the trial court erred by (1) dismissing her petition on the basis of res judicata; (2) determining that Georgia was not the child’s home state under the Uniform Child Custody and Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”); (3) dismissing her child support claims under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (“UIFSA”); (4) failing to initiate mandatory interstate communication with Maryland before determining that Georgia lacked jurisdiction; (5) adopting Darrell London’s “counterclaim language verbatim and disregarding uncontroverted evidence and testimony” which confirmed that Georgia was the proper forum; and (6) awarding London attorney fees without proper statutory or factual justification.1 For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court’s order dismissing Robinson’s petition. The record shows that Robinson and London are the parents of a minor child who was born in 2018.2 Robinson and the child have lived in Rockdale County, Georgia since 2020, and London resides in Owings Mills, Maryland.3 In July 2021, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City in Maryland entered an order awarding Robinson sole legal custody and primary physical custody of the child, and it established a parenting time schedule for London to visit with the child. The court also ordered London to pay $990 monthly in child support. Robinson later petitioned for a modification in custody and child support, and in March 2024, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City entered an order granting Robinson’s petition in part and denying it 1 London did not file a responsive brief in this appeal. 2 Robinson and London were never married. 3 London asserted below that he has always lived in the state of Maryland. 2 in part. Specifically, the court ruled that Robinson would retain primary physical custody of the child but that the parties would have joint legal custody of the child.4 Robinson again petitioned the Maryland tribunal to modify child support, and on February 20, 2025, the tribunal granted her petition and increased London’s monthly child support obligations to $1,319.00. In March 2025, Robinson filed a pro se “verified petition to domesticate and register custody and child support order and modification of visitation and child support, and citation for willful contempt of court” in the Superior Court of Rockdale County. In her petition, Robinson requested that the court modify the Maryland court’s March 2024 visitation and parenting order and the February 2025 order. She alleged that modification of the orders was warranted because the Maryland tribunal failed to account for the academic calendar of the child’s school, which she alleged impacted the child’s ability to spend “meaningful” time with her maternal family during holidays, and that London generated substantial income from a business that he owns and operates. Robinson also asserted a claim for contempt based on London’s failure to comply with the Maryland court’s orders requiring him to secure health