COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Kelsey, Petty and Senior Judge Bumgardner
ANDREW BILSKI
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 1895-09-4 PER CURIAM
AUGUST 24, 2010
CHRISTINA BILSKI
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY
Charles J. Maxfield, Judge
(Andrew Bilski, pro se, on briefs).
(Leslie A. Shopf; Law Office of Ana M. Cuitino, P.C., on brief), for
appellee.
(Matthew W. Greene; Martin, Arif & Greene, PLC, on brief),
Guardian ad litem for the minor child.
Andrew Bilski (father) appeals the trial court’s denial of his motions relating to an
underlying custody order. Father argues that (1) the trial court abused its discretion in denying him
“the privilege” to present his argument relating to his motion to withdraw from dispute resolution
proceedings; (2) the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw from dispute
resolution proceedings, which was based on Code § 8.01-576.5; (3) father should be allowed to
withdraw from dispute resolution proceedings; (4) the trial court abused its discretion in denying
him “the privilege” to present his motion to clarify the December 5, 2008 order; (5) the trial court
abused its discretion in denying his motion to clarify the December 5, 2008 order; (6) the trial court
should clarify its own order when a party requests clarification; (7) the trial court abused its
discretion in denying him “the privilege” to present his motion to compel Christina Bilski (mother)
*
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
to share equal access to the child’s School Age Child Care (SACC) account; (8) the trial court
abused it discretion in denying his motion to compel mother to share access to the SACC account;
(9) the mother should be compelled to share access to information regarding the parties’ child
because the parties have joint legal custody; (10) the trial court erred in not agreeing that the
Guardian ad litem’s (GAL) negative comments about father were undeserved; (11) the trial court
abused its discretion in imposing monetary sanctions against father; (12) he did not force courtroom
proceedings, but in fact, actively tried to avoid litigation; and (13) there is no compelling reason to
uphold the monetary sanctions against father. 1 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.
BACKGROUND
On December 5, 2008, the trial court entered an order awarding mother and father joint
legal custody of their child. On June 30, 2009, father filed three motions, namely: “Motion to
compel petitioner to equally share access to child’s School Age Child Care (SACC) account”;
“Motion to clarify portions of the December 5, 2008 order”; and “Motion to withdraw from
dispute resolution proceedings.” On July 13, 2009, the GAL filed a “Motion to Amend Order
with Regard to Summer Visitation Schedules.” On July 17, 2009, father filed a “Motion to agree
that Guardian Ad Litem’s negative comments about the father are undeserved.” On July 24,
2009, the parties appeared before the trial court. Father had not requested more than the
scheduled thirty minutes for the hearing. Each party was allotted ten minutes to present its
argument. Father used all of his time. The trial court denied all of father’s motions and awarded
1
Father filed a motion requesting that this Court not consider mother’s brief or allow him
leave of court to file a supplemental reply brief because mother filed her brief late. Mother, by
counsel, filed a response in opposition thereto. Upon consideration whereof, the motion is
denied.
-2-
mother $500 in attorney’s fees. Father filed a motion for reconsideration, which the trial court
denied. Father timely noted his appeal.
ANALYSIS
Dispute Resolution Proceedings (Issues 2 and 3)
Father argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw from dispute
resolution proceedings. Father cites to Code §§ 8.01-576.4 and 8.01-576.5 to support his
argument that he should have been allowed to withdraw from dispute resolution proceedings.
The trial court noted that these code sections do not apply to father’s case, and we agree.
The December 5, 2008 order states that mother and father were required to work with a
parenting coordinator to help them resolve their disputes. In his motion, father, without offering
any explanation, tells the trial court that he no longer wants to work with the current parenting
coordinator.
The code sections cited by father relate to contested civil proceedings in which the trial
court is referring the parties to dispute resolution proceedings and protecting their right to a trial
by jury. See Code § 8.01-576.5. Here, the parents had a history of working with a parenting
coordinator, and the trial court ordered their continued participation with him. The parenting
coordinator was not akin to the dispute resolution proceedings referred to in Code § 8.01-576.5.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying father’s motion.
SACC Account (Issues 8 and 9)
Father argues that the trial court erred in denying him equal access to the child’s SACC
account. Mother opened and maintained the SACC account for the child. Father filed a motion
asking the court to compel mother to provide him with her account name and password to the
child’s SACC account. Father contends Code §§ 20-124.1 and 20-124.2(B) support his assertion
that he should have equal access to the account.
-3-
The trial court stated that these code sections do not support the position that a joint
custodian has equal authority to manage financial matters, and we agree. Code § 20-124.1
defines joint legal custody, but it does not include equal access to financial accounts. Code
§ 20-124.2(B) states that neither parent is favored in determining custody. There is no mention
of equal access to financial accounts or equal authority to manage financial matters in either
statute.
Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying father’s motion.
Rule 5A:20(e) (Issues 1, 4 through 7, and 10 through 13)
In questions presented 1, 4, and 7, father argues that he did not have “the privilege” to
argue his motions before the judge in the courtroom. In questions presented 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, and
13, father contends the trial court erred in not clarifying the December 5, 2008 order regarding
decision-making powers, failing to agree that the GAL made negative comments about him, and
ordering him to pay $500 of mother’s attorney’s fees.
Father cites to no law or legal authority to support these arguments. See Rule 5A:20(e).
Father has the burden of showing that reversible error was committed. See Lutes v. Alexander,
14 Va. App. 1075, 1077, 421 S.E.2d 857, 859 (1992). Unsupported assertions of error “do not
merit appellate consideration.” Buchanan v. Buchanan, 14 Va. App. 53, 56, 415 S.E.2d 237, 239
(1992). “Even pro se litigants must comply with the rules of court.” Francis v. Francis, 30
Va. App. 584, 591, 518 S.E.2d 842, 846 (1999).
We find that father’s failure to comply with Rule 5A:20(e) is significant, so we will not
consider questions presented 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 13. See Fadness v. Fadness, 52
Va. App. 833, 851, 667 S.E.2d 857, 866 (2008) (“If the parties believed that the circuit court
erred, it was their duty to present that error to us with legal authority to support their
contention.”); Parks v. Parks, 52 Va. App. 663, 664, 666 S.E.2d 547, 548 (2008).
-4-
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the trial court’s ruling is summarily affirmed. Rule 5A:27.
Affirmed.
-5-