Pierre Joligard v. Christina M. Joligard ( 1997 )


Menu:
  •                     COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
    Present:   Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis
    PIERRE JOLIGARD
    MEMORANDUM OPINION *
    v.   Record No. 2533-96-4                          PER CURIAM
    MAY 20, 1997
    CHRISTINA M. JOLIGARD
    FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY
    Paul F. Sheridan, Judge
    (Pierre Joligard, pro se, on briefs).
    (Leo R. Andrews, Jr., on brief), for
    appellee.
    Pierre Joligard (father) appeals the decision of the circuit
    court modifying visitation and awarding attorney's fees to
    Christina Joligard (mother).   Father contends that the trial
    court erred by (1) ordering custody and visitation without
    substantial, competent, and credible evidence; (2) reducing
    visitation without finding a material change in circumstances;
    (3) reducing visitation time without applying the proper
    evidentiary standard; and (4) awarding fees without proper
    notice.    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.    Rule 5A:27.
    "In matters concerning custody and visitation, the welfare
    and best interests of the child are the 'primary, paramount, and
    *
    Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
    designated for publication.
    controlling consideration[s].'"        Kogon v. Ulerick, 
    12 Va. App. 595
    , 596, 
    405 S.E.2d 441
    , 442 (1991) (citation omitted).       "The
    trial court, in the interest of the children's welfare, may
    modify visitation rights of a parent based upon a change in
    circumstances."    Fariss v. Tsapel, 
    3 Va. App. 439
    , 442, 
    350 S.E.2d 670
    , 672 (1986).     See Keel v. Keel, 
    225 Va. 606
    , 611-12,
    
    303 S.E.2d 917
    , 921 (1983).    The trial court is vested with broad
    discretion to make the decisions necessary to safeguard and
    promote the child's best interests, and its decision will not be
    set aside unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.
    See Farley v. Farley, 
    9 Va. App. 326
    , 327-28, 
    387 S.E.2d 794
    , 795
    (1990).
    Father contends that there had been material changes in
    circumstances since the trial court's award of custody to mother
    in April 1995.    Father alleged that the parties' minor child had
    been hospitalized for a drug overdose, that the overdose was
    caused by mother's faulty adherence to the view that the child
    needed to receive psychotropic drugs, and that the child had
    failed to thrive physically while in mother's care.       Father also
    alleged that mother's relocation outside Virginia and her
    relationship with a new boyfriend were material changes.
    The trial judge considered the evidence and heard the
    testimony of the parties.    The trial judge was not persuaded by
    the father's arguments and rejected the father's petition.       "The
    credibility of the witnesses is within the exclusive province of
    2
    the finder of fact because it uniquely has the opportunity to see
    and hear the witnesses testify and weigh their credibility based
    upon their appearance, demeanor and manner of testifying."     Estes
    v. Commonwealth, 
    8 Va. App. 520
    , 524, 
    382 S.E.2d 491
    , 493 (1989).
    The court found no change in circumstances warranting a change
    of custody from mother.   We find no error in that decision.
    Father also contends that the trial court erred in reducing
    his visitation without finding a material change of circumstances
    and that the decision was not supported by substantial, competent
    and credible evidence.
    The court found that the parties were demonstrably unable to
    work together to reach decisions concerning the child's welfare
    and that one parent needed to be completely in charge.   The trial
    court also found, and evidence in the record documents, that the
    substantial animosity between the parties and extended family
    made visitations disruptive.   Furthermore, the court found that
    traveling from Pennsylvania to Virginia three weekends a month
    destabilized the place of primary custody and was not conducive
    to the child's best interests.   The trial court's decision
    maintaining custody with mother and reducing father's visitation
    to two weekends a month was based upon the child's best interests
    and was not plainly wrong.
    We reject father's claim that he lacked notice concerning
    the award of fees for the guardian ad litem.   It is unclear
    whether father's objection relates to those costs previously
    3
    awarded against father and excepted from discharge by the federal
    bankruptcy court or the additional costs charged at the
    completion of the hearing.   Father was demonstrably aware that
    the parties bore responsibility for payment to the guardian ad
    litem and these charges remained outstanding.   We find no abuse
    of discretion in the trial court's award.
    Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily
    affirmed.
    Affirmed.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2533964

Filed Date: 5/20/1997

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014