Sonia Francis-Rolle appeals pro se from the final order of the superior court granting Gilbert Cary Harvey III’s petition to modify child custody rights awarded to Francis-Rolle in the parties’ prior divorce decree.1 After a bench trial, the court modified the divorce decree by granting Harvey custody of the parties’ minor child and ordering Francis-Rolle to pay child support. The court also awarded attorney fees to Harvey in the amount of $15,250.00. For the following reasons, the appeal is dismissed in part; the court’s order is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part, and the vacated portion of the order is remanded. 1. Francis-Rolle contends that the court erred by granting custody of the child to Harvey. The child was 17 years old when the court granted custody to Harvey and turned 18 years of age shortly after the appeal was docketed. Because at 18 years the child has reached the age of legal majority and is no longer subject to the custody order, this issue is moot. OCGA § 39-1-1 a age of legal majority is 18 years; OCGA § 19-7-1 a at age 18 child no longer in the custody or control of either parent. To the extent Francis-Rolle claims the custody award was error, the appeal is dismissed.
2. Francis-Rolle contends that the trial court erred by ordering her to pay child support to Harvey after the child reached the age of 18 years. The court ordered Francis-Rolle to pay Harvey child support in the amount of $628.00 per month “until the child reaches the age of 18 or graduates from secondary school, whichever occurs last.” Under OCGA § 19-6-15 e, the duty to provide support for a minor child shall continue until the child reaches the age of majority, dies, marries, or becomes emancipated, whichever occurs first; provided, however, that, in any temporary, final, or modified order for child support with respect to any proceeding for divorce, separate maintenance, legitimacy, or paternity entered on or after July 1, 1992, the court, in the exercise of sound discretion, may direct either or both parents to provide financial assistance to a child who has not previously married or become emancipated, who is enrolled in and attending a secondary school, and who has attained the age of majority before completing his or her secondary school education, provided that such financial assistance shall not be required after a child attains 20 years of age. “Under the plain language of the statute, child support obligations may be extended under certain circumstances for ‘a child who has attained the age of majority,’ and that obligation will terminate ‘after a child attains 20 years of age.’ ” Ferguson v. Ferguson , 267 Ga. 886, 887 485 SE2d 475 1997. The purpose of the statute is to give the court discretion to recognize continuing parental responsibility to financially assist a child over the age of 18 to complete secondary school education. Draughn v. Draughn , __Ga.__ Case No. S10A1599, decided March 7, 2011. Francis-Rolle does not assert that the child is not enrolled in and attending secondary school. To the extent the court exercised its discretion to extend the child support obligation under OCGA § 19-6-15 e after the child attained the age of 18 years, we find no abuse of discretion and affirm. The court’s order, however, requires Francis-Rolle to pay support for this purpose without limit as to age and without recognizing “ that such financial assistance shall not be required after a child attains 20 years of age.” OCGA § 19-6-15 e. We reverse the court’s order to the extent it would impose this support obligation after the child attains 20 years of age.
