COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Elder, Bray and Senior Judge Overton
STANISLAW W. ZAJACZKOWSKI
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 0285-01-4 PER CURIAM
JULY 24, 2001
JOLANTA T. ZAJACZKOWSKA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY
Jane Marum Roush, Judge
(Stanislaw W. Zajaczkowski, pro se, on
brief).
No brief for appellee.
(Thomas P. Sotelo, Guardian ad litem for
infant child; Keegan & Sotelo, PLC, on
brief).
Stanislaw W. Zajaczkowski (father) appeals the decision of
the circuit court awarding custody of his minor son, Jan
Zajaczkowski, to Jolanta T. Zajaczkowska (mother). On appeal,
father contends that the trial court erred in (1) failing to sign
the statement of facts, (2) failing to enter a finding of
inconvenient forum, (3) failing to contact and coordinate
jurisdiction with the Warsaw Family Court, (4) failing to consider
and grant motions filed via International Express Mail on December
24, 2000 and noticed for January 5, 2001, and (5) awarding the
full amount of fees and expenses claimed by the guardian ad litem.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
Upon reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we
conclude that this appeal is without merit as to the first issue
raised by father. We also conclude that a transcript or statement
of facts is indispensable to a determination of the other four
issues, therefore, we dismiss the appeal as to those.
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court
in part and dismiss in part. See Rule 5A:27.
Procedural Background
Father and mother separated in 1990 and have been involved in
a protracted custody dispute involving their son, Jan. The court
initially awarded custody of Jan to mother, but in a September 25,
1992 order, the court transferred custody to father. The parties
were divorced on September 7, 1993. Father then relocated to
Warsaw, Poland with Jan. In 1996, mother brought Jan back to the
United States. In 1998, the trial court again awarded custody of
Jan to father. Jan returned to Poland with his father in June
1999 but fled the country on November 6, 2000 and returned to
Virginia. On December 1, 2000, the trial court found mother in
contempt and awarded temporary custody of Jan to the Department of
Family Services. On December 6, 2000, the trial court heard
arguments on the guardian ad litem's emergency motion to compel
mother to produce Jan and mother's motion for temporary custody.
The trial court deferred its ruling until January 5, 2001 at which
time it also heard the guardian ad litem's motion for fees. The
court awarded the guardian ad litem $14,786.57 in fees, denied
- 2 -
mother's motion for temporary custody, and referred all other
matters concerning the custody of Jan to the juvenile and domestic
relations district court. Father filed several motions which the
trial court received on January 4, 2001 and declined to hear at
the January 5, 2001 hearing. In a letter dated April 3, 2001, the
trial court declined to sign the statement of facts proffered by
father.
Analysis
I.
The trial judge stated in her letter opinion that it had been
four months since the trial, that she had heard hundreds of cases
in the interim, that a court reporter was present at the December
6, 2000 hearing, and that she had relied on the court reporter so
did not take extensive notes. Consequently, the trial judge
concluded that she was unable to certify the statement of facts
provided by father. The trial judge acted reasonably in refusing
to sign the proposed statement of facts where several months had
passed since the hearing and she relied upon the presence of the
court reporter. White v. Morano, 249 Va. 27, 452 S.E.2d 856
(1995).
II. through V.
No transcript or certified statement of facts was filed in
this case. Father asserts that the trial court erred in failing
to enter a finding of inconvenient forum, failing to contact and
coordinate jurisdiction with the Warsaw Family Court, failing to
- 3 -
consider and grant several motions filed via mail and, awarding
the full amount of fees and expenses claimed by the guardian ad
litem.
Since a transcript or statement of facts is indispensable
to a determination of these issues, the appeal must be dismissed
in part. See Anderson v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 506, 508-09,
413 S.E.2d 75, 76-77 (1992); Turner v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App.
96, 99-100, 341 S.E.2d 400, 402 (1986).
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial
court in part and dismiss in part. See Rule 5A:27.
Affirmed in part and
dismissed in part.
- 4 -