Linda Gail Headley v. Wendell Gary Jewell ( 2003 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Annunziata, McClanahan and Senior Judge Coleman
LINDA GAIL HEADLEY
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 3084-02-4 PER CURIAM
JUNE 17, 2003
WENDELL GARY JEWELL
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY
Rossie D. Alston, Jr., Judge
(Linda Gail Headley, pro se, on brief).
No brief for appellee.
Linda Gail Headley, appellant, appeals the trial court's
order declining to exercise jurisdiction over her petitions for
temporary custody and visitation with the parties' child.
Appellant contends the trial court erred in denying the child his
"right to his home state's continuing and original jurisdiction."
She also asserts that the trial court refused to hear all
circumstances surrounding the child's welfare and that the
guardian ad litem refused to contact her prior to the hearing. In
addition, appellant makes several constitutional arguments. Upon
reviewing the record and opening brief, we conclude that this
appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the
decision of the trial judge. See Rule 5A:27.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
"'A court which has jurisdiction [to modify a decree] may
decline to exercise its jurisdiction . . . if it finds that it
is an inconvenient forum . . . and that a court of another state
is a more appropriate forum.' We will reverse the court's
decision only upon a finding of abuse of discretion." Johnson
v. Johnson, 26 Va. App. 135, 147, 493 S.E.2d 668, 673 (1997)
(citation omitted).
Code § 20-146.18(A) provides:
A court of this Commonwealth that has
jurisdiction under this act to make a child
custody determination may decline to
exercise its jurisdiction at any time if it
determines that it is an inconvenient forum
under the circumstances and that a court of
another state is a more appropriate forum.
Before determining whether it is an inconvenient forum, the
court "shall consider whether it is appropriate for a court of
another state to exercise jurisdiction." Code § 20-146.18(B).
In making this determination, "the court shall allow the parties
to present evidence and shall consider all relevant factors,"
including those listed in the statute. 1
1
Code § 20-146.18(B) provides the trial court shall
consider:
1. Whether domestic violence has occurred
and is likely to continue in the future and
which state could best protect the parties
and the child;
2. The length of time the child has resided
outside this Commonwealth;
- 2 -
Appellant and Wendell Gary Jewell, appellee, are divorced
and are the parents of the child, a teenager. Appellee recently
retired from the military. However, appellee's wife, the
child's stepmother, is still in the military. In 1994, the
Juvenile Court Division of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court
of Montgomery, Alabama awarded appellee custody of the child.
That court also ordered that appellant meet certain
preconditions prior to exercising visitation with the child.
The Alabama order was registered in Prince William County,
Virginia.
3. The distance between the court in this
Commonwealth and the court in the state that
would assume jurisdiction;
4. The relative financial circumstances of
the parties;
5. Any agreement of the parties as to which
state should assume jurisdiction;
6. The nature and location of the evidence
required to resolve the pending litigation,
including testimony of the child;
7. The ability of the court of each state
to decide the issue expeditiously and the
procedures necessary to present the
evidence; and
8. The familiarity of the court of each
state with the facts and issues in the
pending litigation.
- 3 -
Appellant later filed in the Prince William County courts a
motion to amend custody of the child. Both the juvenile and
domestic relations district court (JDR court) and the Prince
William County Circuit Court denied the motions. The circuit
court order entered on August 9, 2001 found no material change
in circumstances since the entry of the Alabama order, that it
was in the best interests of the child to reside with appellee,
that there was no evidence of abuse or neglect of the child
while residing with appellee, and that appellant had not met the
preconditions ordered by the Alabama court for visitation.
In June 2002, appellant filed a Petition for Temporary
Visitation and a Petition for Temporary Custody in the Prince
William County JDR court. The JDR court denied the petitions,
and appellant appealed those decisions to the trial court.
In the trial court, appellee filed a motion to decline
jurisdiction over the matters. At a hearing held on October 24,
2002, the parties were given the opportunity to present evidence
and arguments concerning the jurisdiction issue. At the
hearing, evidence was presented that the child last resided in
Virginia in June 2001. Thereafter, he resided with appellee and
his stepmother in Germany until July 2002. In July 2002,
appellee, the child, and the child's stepmother moved to Kansas
where they resided at the time of the hearing. Thus, the child
had not resided in Virginia for sixteen months prior to the
hearing. In addition, although appellant alleged appellee had
- 4 -
committed crimes, appellee's counsel indicated there were no
pending criminal charges against appellee in either Virginia or
Kansas.
The parties clearly do not have an agreement as to which
state should assume jurisdiction. Appellee is now retired, and
the distance between Virginia and Kansas is considerable.
Furthermore, Virginia is not the home state of the child or his
custodial parent and the child is enrolled in school in Kansas.
Therefore, having the proceeding in Kansas would be the least
disruptive to the child's life. Moreover, the location of much
of the evidence required to resolve the pending litigation is in
Kansas, including the child should he be called to testify.
Accordingly, under the facts of this case, the trial court did
not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise jurisdiction.
Furthermore, the record reflects that the trial court gave
appellant an opportunity to present her case at the hearing. In
addition, the record contains numerous lengthy documents filed
by appellant which state her position on the matter. Therefore,
we find appellant's argument that the trial court refused to
hear all circumstances concerning the child's welfare is without
merit. The record also indicates that appellant failed to
obtain rulings from the trial court regarding her guardian ad
litem and constitutional arguments. If a party fails to obtain
a ruling, there is no ruling for us to review. Fisher v.
Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 447, 454, 431 S.E.2d 886, 890 (1993).
- 5 -
Rule 5A:18 bars our consideration of these questions on appeal,
and the record reflects no reason to invoke the exception to the
rule.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Affirmed.
- 6 -