Grant Lewis Clatterbuck v. Candace J M Clatterbuck

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Bumgardner, Kelsey and Senior Judge Hodges
GRANT LEWIS CLATTERBUCK
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 1775-02-3 PER CURIAM
DECEMBER 10, 2002
CANDACE JANE MARTIN CLATTERBUCK
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ROANOKE COUNTY
Jonathan M. Apgar, Judge
(Leisa K. Ciaffone, on briefs), for
appellant.
(Barry M. Tatel; Neil E. McNally; Key,
Tatel & McNally, on brief), for appellee.
Grant Lewis Clatterbuck (husband) appeals from a final decree
awarding Candace Jane Martin Clatterbuck (wife) a divorce. On
appeal, husband contends the trial court erred by finding good
cause existed under Code § 20-124.6 to deny him access to his
child's counseling records. He argues the evidence does not
support the finding. Husband asks that the trial court's decision
be reversed and that he be provided access to the records. 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.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
On appeal, we view the evidence and all reasonable
inferences in the light most favorable to appellee as the party
prevailing below. See McGuire v. McGuire, 10 Va. App. 248, 250,
391 S.E.2d 344, 346 (1990).
Procedural Background
The parties married in 1980. They had three children during
the course of their marriage. On January 23, 2001 wife filed a
bill of complaint seeking a divorce. Their daughter, Lauren, was
a minor at the time of the proceedings.
During the parties' separation, wife and Lauren were in
counseling with Laurel Martin, a licensed professional counselor.
Husband requested Lauren's records from Martin and subpoenaed the
records when Martin did not produce them.
Holly Peters, Lauren's guardian ad litem, informed the court
that she advised the records not be released. She further
reported that Lauren had requested the records remain private.
Additionally, Martin, in a statement to the court, indicated "it
would not be in Lauren's best interest to release her records to
either parent." Martin opined the trust between Lauren and her
counselor would "be undermined by the knowledge that [Lauren's]
records were being disclosed." The records were filed with the
court under seal. The court determined good cause existed to deny
husband access to his daughter's counseling records.
- 2 -
Analysis
Code § 20-124.6 provides that, "[n]otwithstanding any other
provision of law, neither parent, regardless of whether such
parent has custody, shall be denied access to the academic,
medical, hospital or other health records of that parent's minor
child unless otherwise ordered by the court for good cause
shown."
"The trial court's decision, when based
upon an ore tenus hearing, is entitled to
great weight and will not be disturbed
unless plainly wrong or without evidence to
support it." "Certainly it is true that the
legal rights of the parent should be
respected . . . but the welfare of the child
is to be regarded more highly than the
technical legal rights of the parent."
Green v. Richmond Dep't of Soc. Serv., 35 Va. App. 682, 686-87,
547 S.E.2d 548, 550 (2001) (citations omitted).
Peters and Martin indicated the release of Lauren's records
could impair Lauren's counseling. Lauren stated she wished the
records to remain private. The trial judge indicated he
considered the opinions of the counselor and guardian ad litem, as
well as Lauren's wishes. The evidence supports the trial court's
determination that good cause existed to deny husband access to
the records.
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial
court. See Rule 5A:27.
Affirmed.
- 3 -