Loretta Roberts v. Philip Nathaniel Williams ( 1996 )


Menu:
  •                   COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
    Present: Judges Benton, Willis and Bray
    Argued at Richmond, Virginia
    LORETTA ROBERTS
    v.        Record No. 0303-95-3         MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
    JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR.
    PHILIP NATHANIEL WILLIAMS                FEBRUARY 13, 1996
    FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
    Porter R. Graves, Jr., Judge
    R. Bruce Wiles, for appellant.
    No brief or argument for appellee.
    Loretta Roberts appeals the judgment of the trial court
    awarding custody of Tajon S. Williams to his biological father,
    Philip Nathaniel Williams.   Ms. Roberts contends that the trial
    court erred (1) in concluding that Williams had not voluntarily
    relinquished custody of Tajon and (2) in finding that Tajon's
    best interests were served by awarding custody to Williams.    We
    find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
    When addressing matters concerning a child . . . the
    paramount consideration of a trial court is the child's
    best interests. On review, "[a] trial court is
    presumed to have thoroughly weighed all the evidence,
    considered the statutory requirements, and made its
    determination based on the child's best interests."
    Furthermore, the evidence is viewed in the light most
    favorable to the prevailing party below and its
    evidence is afforded all reasonable inferences fairly
    deducible therefrom. "In matters of a child's welfare,
    trial courts are vested with broad discretion in making
    the decisions necessary to guard and to foster a
    child's best interests." The trial court's judgment,
    "when based on evidence heard ore tenus, will not be
    *
    Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
    designated for publication.
    disturbed on appeal unless plainly wrong or without
    evidence to support it."
    Logan v. Fairfax County, 13 Va App. 123, 128, 
    409 S.E.2d 460
    , 463
    (1991) (citations omitted).
    "In custody disputes between a natural parent and a non-
    parent, the law presumes the best interest of the child will be
    served when in the custody of the natural parent."     Mason v.
    Moon, 
    9 Va. App. 217
    , 220, 
    385 S.E.2d 242
    , 244 (1989).    "To
    overcome the strong presumption favoring a parent, the non-parent
    must adduce by clear and convincing evidence that . . . the
    parents voluntarily relinquished custody."    Id.   "A voluntary
    relinquishment occurs when a parent willingly agrees or consents
    to having their child placed in the custody of a nonparent."       Id.
    at 222, 385 S.E.2d at 245.
    Ms. Roberts bore the burden of proving by clear and
    convincing evidence that Williams voluntarily relinquished
    custody of Tajon.    The trial court found the evidence
    insufficient to prove a voluntary relinquishment.    We cannot say
    this determination was plainly wrong.
    In May, 1991, Tajon's biological mother took him and left
    Williams.   She placed Tajon with her first cousin, Ms. Roberts,
    while she stayed in a shelter.    On May 31, 1991, Ms. Roberts was
    awarded temporary custody of Tajon by the juvenile and domestic
    relations court with the consent of the biological mother, but
    without notice to Williams.   Williams first learned of this order
    in December, 1991.   In April, 1992, he sought custody.   An order
    - 2 -
    entered May 15, 1992, allowed Ms. Roberts to retain temporary
    custody of Tajon, but Williams specifically reserved his parental
    rights.
    In December, 1992, and again in September, 1993, Williams
    sought custody of Tajon.    He was awarded custody in November,
    1993.    These circumstances clearly show the efforts that Williams
    made to gain custody of his son and support the trial court's
    ruling that Ms. Roberts failed to prove by clear and convincing
    evidence that Williams voluntarily relinquished custody of Tajon.
    Ms. Roberts next contends that the trial court erred in
    finding that Tajon's best interests were served by awarding his
    custody to Williams.    The trial court based its ruling on the
    statutory factors of Code § 20-124.3, the best interests of the
    child standard.    Credible evidence supports the trial court's
    finding.    The evidence disclosed that Williams can provide a
    stable and loving environment in which to raise Tajon, Williams
    and Tajon have a good relationship and enjoy spending time
    together,    Williams and his wife have established jobs and can
    provide financially for Tajon, and Williams' wife supports his
    desire to have custody of Tajon.
    "This case fits within the established rule that 'the parent
    prevails unless the non-parent bears the burden of proving, by
    clear and convincing evidence, both that the parent is unfit and
    that the best interest of the child will be promoted by granting
    custody to the non-parent.'"     Elder v. Evans, 
    16 Va. App. 60
    , 67,
    - 3 -
    
    427 S.E.2d 745
    , 749 (1993).   "[A] fit parent with a suitable home
    has a right to the custody of his child superior to the rights of
    others."   Id.   The evidence in this case clearly supports the
    trial court's finding that Tajon's best interests are served by
    his being in Williams' custody.
    The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
    Affirmed.
    - 4 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 0303953

Filed Date: 2/13/1996

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021