Royal Andrew Bandy v. Buchanan Co. Dept. Soc. Ser. ( 1998 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton
ROYAL ANDREW BANDY
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 1463-97-3 PER CURIAM
MARCH 10, 1998
BUCHANAN COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF SOCIAL SERVICES
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BUCHANAN COUNTY
Keary R. Williams, Judge
(Kevin D. Tiller, on brief), for appellant.
(Sandra Keen McGlothlin; McGlothlin & Wife,
on brief), for appellee.
Royal Bandy appeals the decision of the circuit court
terminating his residual parental rights. Bandy contends that
the trial court failed to hold the termination hearing within the
time required under Code § 16.1-296(D) following Bandy's appeal
from the juvenile and domestic relations district court. Upon
reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that
this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm
the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27.
Code § 16.1-296(D) provides that "[w]hen an appeal is taken
in a case involving termination of parental rights brought under
§ 16.1-283, the circuit court shall hold a hearing on the merits
of the case within ninety days of the perfecting of the appeal."
Bandy contends that the trial court erred by failing to hold the
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
termination hearing within the ninety-day period required by Code
§ 16.1-296(D). The juvenile and domestic relations district
court order of termination was entered February 28, 1996.
We find no indication that Bandy raised before the trial
court the issue he now raises on appeal. The Court of Appeals
will not consider an argument on appeal which was not presented
to the trial court. See Jacques v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App.
591, 593, 405 S.E.2d 630, 631 (1991) (citing Rule 5A:18).
Accordingly, Rule 5A:18 bars our consideration of this
question on appeal. Moreover, the record does not reflect any
reason to invoke the good cause or ends of justice exceptions to
Rule 5A:18. The record indicates that an agreed order of
continuance was entered on April 26, 1996, rescheduling the
hearing for August 1996 and noting that all parties "agreed to
Waive the requirements of Section 16.1-296D . . . ." A
subsequent continuance was granted on August 6, 1996, pursuant to
motions to withdraw filed by counsel for Bandy and the mother.
On March 10, 1997, the court granted Bandy's motion to continue
the hearing until April 17, 1997.
Bandy did not raise this issue before the trial court, and
the record does not reflect grounds for an exception to Rule
5A:18. Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is
summarily affirmed.
Affirmed.
2