Two appeals arose from a long-running child-custody and reunification dispute. In one, Kitty Yntema challenged a consent order restricting her speech about the parents and custody proceedings. In the other, Howard Yntema challenged contempt-related orders, the trial judge’s refusal to recuse, the refusal to vacate or modify the consent order, and sealing of the case. The Court of Appeals of Georgia held that the speech restrictions were overbroad in part and reversed that portion of the order. It otherwise affirmed the ruling in Kitty Yntema’s appeal. In Howard Yntema’s appeal, the court vacated in part and remanded. The court also rejected the argument that the reunification provisions improperly created a self-executing custody change because the order left the court responsible for determining the timing and conditions of contact.