COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Elder, Clements and Senior Judge Annunziata
TAMMY DIANA BOWEN
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. Record No. 1553-06-2 PER CURIAM
DECEMBER 12, 2006
DANIEL PAUL SMITH
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY
Ernest P. Gates, Judge Designate
(Owaiian M. Jones, on brief), for appellant.
(John Franklin; Woehrle & Franklin, on brief), for appellee.
Tammy Diana Bowen, mother, appeals a trial court order finding that she committed an
act of abuse and issuing a protective order. In her opening brief, mother makes several
arguments relating to the trial court’s findings and issuance of the protective order. Upon
reviewing the record and the 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.
The arguments raised in mother’s brief include: (1) “the evidence was wholly
unsupported to permit a finding that [she] committed an act of abuse” due to conflicts and
contradictions in the testimony; (2) the trial “court failed to consider that she had a legal
responsibility and duty to control her children” and “a parental right to administer corporal
punishment to maintain that control,” and she “did not exceed the bounds of moderation and
reason in this case”; and (3) the trial court “erred by entering a two-year child protective order
against” her.
*
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
The trial court entered its final order on May 19, 2006. Wife endorsed it as “Seen and
objected as stated in open court.” The parties filed no transcripts from the hearings, relying
instead on a written statement of facts pursuant to Rule 5A:8. The only reference to wife’s
objections is contained in Paragraph 56, which states, “[Wife] objected to the entry of the Child
Protective Order.”
“As a precondition to appellate review, Rule 5A:18 requires a contemporaneous objection
in the trial court to preserve the issue on appeal.” Thomas v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 741,
750, 607 S.E.2d 738, 742, aff’d on reh’g en banc, 45 Va. App. 811, 613 S.E.2d 870 (2005).
“The main purpose of requiring timely specific objections is to afford the trial court an
opportunity to rule intelligently on the issues presented, thus avoiding unnecessary appeals and
reversals.” Weidman v. Babcock, 241 Va. 40, 44, 400 S.E.2d 164, 167 (1991) (citing Reid v.
Baumgardner, 217 Va. 769, 773, 232 S.E.2d 778, 780 (1977)).
This Court has held that merely endorsing a final order as “seen and excepted to for all
reasons stated in the record” is insufficient, standing alone, to preserve a particular issue for
appeal. Courembis v. Courembis, 43 Va. App. 18, 26, 595 S.E.2d 505, 509 (2004). The record
fails to show that mother made the specific arguments she now raises on appeal or that the trial
court ruled on such objections. Thus, this issue was not preserved for appeal.
Although Rule 5A:18 allows exceptions for good cause or to meet
the ends of justice, appellant does not argue that we should invoke
these exceptions. See e.g., Redman v. Commonwealth, 25
Va. App. 215, 221, 487 S.E.2d 269, 272 (1997) (“In order to avail
oneself of the exception, a defendant must affirmatively show that a
miscarriage of justice has occurred, not that a miscarriage might
have occurred.” (emphasis added)). We will not consider, sua
sponte, a “miscarriage of justice” argument under Rule 5A:18.
Edwards v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 752, 761, 589 S.E.2d 444, 448 (2003) (en banc).
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is summarily affirmed.
Affirmed.
-2-