The Georgia Court of Appeals recently ruled on a significant child custody case involving Suzanne and Paul Gillen, who sought to intervene in a custody dispute between Bonnie Jean Keeler and her son, William Clarence Keeler. The court's decision, issued on November 2, 2026, affects the Gillens' rights to visit their nieces, B.K. and P.K., amid concerns about their biological father's behavior.

The court's ruling is important as it clarifies the rights of family members to intervene in custody cases, particularly under Georgia law. The Gillens argued that the trial court wrongly denied their motion to intervene, which they filed to seek visitation rights with the children. This ruling has implications for how family members can assert their rights in custody disputes.

Background

The case originated when Bonnie Jean and William Clarence Keeler, the children's paternal grandparents, filed a petition in June 2025 to modify an existing custody arrangement. They sought sole legal and physical custody of B.K., then 9, and P.K., then 8, citing concerns about their biological father's history of drug abuse and domestic violence.

In July 2025, the Gillens, who are the children’s aunt and uncle, filed a motion to intervene in the custody action. They claimed to have a strong emotional bond with the children and expressed concern over their well-being, especially given the allegations against their father. The Gillens argued that they had provided care and support to the children throughout their lives and that their visitation rights were in the children's best interests.

The trial court denied the Gillens' motion, stating that their intervention would delay the case and prejudice the original parties involved. Following this, the custody action continued, and a consent final custody order was entered, granting the grandparents joint legal custody while denying the Gillens any contact with the children.

The Ruling

The Georgia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and found that the trial court had erred in denying the Gillens' motion to intervene. The court stated that the Gillens had an unconditional right to intervene under Georgia law, specifically OCGA § 19-7-3(b)(1)(B), which allows family members to seek visitation rights in custody cases.

The court ruled, "Because the Gillens timely sought intervention as a matter of right... the trial court abused its discretion in denying intervention."

The judges noted that the trial court had misinterpreted the law, applying a permissive intervention standard instead of recognizing the Gillens' unconditional right to intervene. The court emphasized that the Gillens had filed their motion in a timely manner and that there was no evidence to suggest their intervention would cause undue delay.

Additionally, the court found that any consideration of the children's best interests was premature, as such considerations should occur only after a family member has been allowed to intervene. The court vacated the trial court's order denying the motion to intervene and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for family members seeking to intervene in custody disputes. It reinforces the rights of family members to assert their claims in court, particularly when they have established relationships with the children involved. The court's decision clarifies that family members, such as aunts and uncles, have a legal basis to seek visitation rights, which can be crucial in situations where the children's welfare is at stake.

The ruling also serves as a reminder for trial courts to adhere to statutory guidelines when evaluating intervention requests. It highlights the importance of understanding the differences between unconditional and permissive intervention rights, which can affect the outcome of custody cases.

What's Next

The trial court must now reconsider the Gillens' motion to intervene and conduct further proceedings regarding their request for visitation rights. The case may still be subject to appeal depending on the outcome of the remanded proceedings. Details regarding any related cases or potential appeals were not provided in the court filing.