The Supreme Court affirmed the grant of the wife's motion for an upward modification of child support. The court held that res judicata did not preclude considerations of the motion and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding a substantial change in her husband's income and financial status. The court held that the same evidence support the trial court's deviation from the presumptive amount child support based on a parent's financial ability to provide for private school education. The court also held that the trial court was authorized to modify the per capita award into a group award, did not error in excluding from evidence the privilege testimony of a licensed psychologist who counseled the parties and their children, and did not err in denying the husband's request for attorney fees. Appellant Richard Odom (husband) and appellee Sherri Odom were divorced pursuant to a 2007 final divorce decree. The decree which incorporated the party settlement agreement, awarded wife primary custody the party's 3 minor children and ordered husband to pay child support in the amount of 2065 per month. The decree also required husband to pay private school tuition for the 2008 2009 academic year him and provided that he shall not be responsible for any expense for private school other then set out in the parties settlement agreement. The trial court entered an order denying husband's motions and granting wife's motion for an upward modification of child support. The court determined there been a substantial change in husband's income and financial status sufficient to warrant an increase in child support and after conducting the calculations required for determining child support under the child support guidelines, ordered an increase in husband's monthly child support to cover the expense of private school for the children. See OCGA 19-6-15 B. The trial court deviated from the presumptive child support award based on its conclusion that the presumptive award would be unjust and/or inappropriate because the educational needs of the children of the parties cannot be met with an award of the presumptive amount. 19-6-15 i.