COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Annunziata, Agee and Senior Judge Coleman
PAMELA WANAMAKER
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. Record No. 0823-02-1 PER CURIAM
SEPTEMBER 17, 2002
RICHARD WANAMAKER
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF WILLIAMSBURG
AND COUNTY OF JAMES CITY
William H. Shaw, III, Judge
(Thomas W. Carpenter, on brief), for
appellant.
(Colleen K. Killilea; Jones, Blechman,
Woltz & Kelly, P.C., on brief), for appellee.
Pamela Wanamaker (mother) appeals the decision of the circuit
court denying her motion for a change in custody of her two
children. She argues the trial court erred by finding (1) there
was no material change in circumstances since Richard Wanamaker
(father) was awarded sole custody, and (2) that a change in
custody was not in the children's best interest. Mother asks that
the trial court's judgment be reversed. 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.
* 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 father as the party
prevailing below. See McGuire v. McGuire, 10 Va. App. 248, 250,
391 S.E.2d 344, 346 (1990).
Procedural Background
Mother and father separated in January 1998, and the juvenile
and domestic relations district court awarded father sole legal
and physical custody at that time. Mother filed a motion in the
district court for an amended custody order granting her custody
of the parties' two children. The district court denied mother's
motion on June 4, 2001, and mother appealed to the circuit court.
Following an ore tenus hearing, the circuit court also denied the
motion.
Since the entry of the original custody order, mother has had
five different jobs, several different addresses, and has been
convicted of attempted burglary. Mother was incarcerated for
thirty-nine days and remains under a suspended sentence. Mother
admitted to having obtained electricity for her home in the name
of her then twelve-year-old daughter because she could not get
credit in her own name. Mother remains under the care of a
psychiatrist and takes prescription medication.
Father remains employed by the Williamsburg Police Department
where he has worked for over nineteen years. He owns his home, is
financially stable, and in good health.
- 2 -
Analysis
I. and II.
Mother contends that the circuit court erred in determining
that she failed to show a material change of circumstances
sufficient to warrant the change in custody.
A party seeking to modify an existing
custody order bears the burden of proving that a
change in circumstances has occurred since the
last custody determination and that the
circumstances warrant a change of custody to
promote the children's best interests. In
deciding whether to modify a custody order, the
trial court's paramount concern must be the
children's best interests. However, the trial
court has broad discretion in determining what
promotes the children's best interests.
Brown v. Brown, 30 Va. App. 532, 537-38, 518 S.E.2d 336, 338
(1999) (citations omitted). "Whether a change of circumstances
exists is a factual finding that will not be disturbed on appeal
if the finding is supported by credible evidence." Visikides v.
Derr, 3 Va. App. 69, 70, 348 S.E.2d 40, 41 (1986). The trial
court found mother had demonstrated only that she had "bettered
herself a little bit." Although noting mother had found a "more
stable job than she's had in a long time," she had not
demonstrated she could provide the children with a stable home.
The court further found that even "assum[ing] that's a material
change . . . there's no evidence that it's [sic] in the best
interest of the children."
- 3 -
Code § 20-124.3 specifies the factors a
court shall consider in determining the
"best interests of a child for . . . custody
or visitation." Although the trial court
must examine all factors set out in Code
§ 20-124.3, it is not required to quantify
or elaborate exactly what weight or
consideration it has given to each of the
statutory factors.
Brown, 30 Va. App. at 538, 518 S.E.2d at 338 (citations
omitted). The evidence shows mother remains under a suspended
sentence for a felony conviction, is under psychiatric care, and
has not established stable housing.
The record demonstrates that the trial court properly
considered the factors contemplated by Code § 20-124.3 and
determined that, under the present conditions, the best
interests of the children were consistent with father's
continued sole custody with liberal visitation for mother.
Because we find no abuse of discretion, we summarily affirm the
decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27.
Affirmed.
- 4 -