Background
Shani Washington (“Mother”) and Jermel Washington (“Father”) divorced in 2016 and share one minor child, N.W. Father was awarded primary physical custody. In February 2024, the trial court denied Mother’s motion to modify custody but modified the parenting plan, including a provision requiring that non-school-day custody exchanges occur at each parent’s residence. The order specified that the arriving parent would remain in their vehicle, text the other parent upon arrival, and wait for the child to come outside.
Mother repeatedly refused to comply. Instead of allowing Father to pick up N.W. at her residence, she would drive the child to alternative locations and instruct Father to retrieve N.W. there. In one instance, Father arrived at Mother’s house, texted that he was waiting outside, and Mother drove out of her garage with N.W. and directed Father to pick the child up at a public library instead. Mother conceded at the contempt hearing that she refused to conduct exchanges at her home, but argued that her “very tumultuous relationship” with Father and her anxiety and PTSD motivated the changes.
Father filed a motion for civil and criminal contempt in August 2024. Following a hearing in June 2025, the trial court found Mother in willful civil contempt and awarded Father $11,378.02 in attorney fees under OCGA section 19-6-2. The trial court denied Father’s criminal contempt motion. Mother appealed pro se, raising six enumerations of error.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Mercier, writing for a unanimous panel, affirmed the contempt finding and attorney fee award on all grounds. The court found ample evidence of willful disobedience: Mother admitted she refused to follow the exchange provisions, and the evidence showed a deliberate pattern of unilaterally relocating exchanges to public sites. Mother’s claimed anxiety did not negate the willfulness of her conduct.
On due process, the court found that Mother received adequate notice of the hearing — at least 16 days — even though electronic notice had failed, because physical mail notice was sent and Mother admitted she knew of the hearing by May 19, 2025. The court also held that exclusion of Mother’s therapist’s affidavit was, at most, harmless error because Mother herself testified about her anxiety and PTSD, making the affidavit cumulative.
Perhaps most notably, the court issued a pointed footnote addressing Mother’s citation of fictitious cases and fictitious quotations throughout her appellate brief. Citing Slay v. Ross, 379 Ga. App. 1 (2026), the court observed that such “hallucinated” cases “are typically a hallmark of the irresponsible use of regenerative artificial intelligence (A.I.) in legal drafting.” The court warned that future filings containing fabricated citations may result in sanctions of up to $10,000 under Court of Appeals Rule 7(e)(2). Because two of Mother’s enumerations of error relied entirely on fictitious citations and inapposite real cases, the court deemed those arguments abandoned.
Key Takeaways
- Willful civil contempt in Georgia requires only that the party knowingly disobeyed a court order — personal disagreement with the order, or emotional distress about compliance, does not negate willfulness under Pate v. Pate.
- The Georgia Court of Appeals has explicitly warned that AI-generated fictitious case citations in appellate briefs may result in sanctions, citing Slay v. Ross (2026) and cautioning that pro se litigants are not exempt from the rules governing citation accuracy.
- Exclusion of cumulative evidence at a contempt hearing is harmless error when the substance of the excluded evidence was presented through other testimony.
- Due process in contempt proceedings requires only reasonable notice; 16 days’ actual notice satisfies this standard even where electronic service failed.
Why It Matters
This decision will resonate with Georgia family law practitioners on two levels. First, it underscores that a parent’s subjective discomfort with court-ordered custody arrangements does not excuse noncompliance. Litigants who disagree with exchange provisions must seek modification through proper channels, not self-help. Second, and perhaps more broadly significant, the court’s explicit warning about AI-hallucinated citations signals an emerging enforcement posture from the Georgia Court of Appeals. As AI drafting tools become more prevalent among pro se litigants and attorneys alike, practitioners should expect Georgia appellate courts to scrutinize citation accuracy with increasing rigor and willingness to sanction.