COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Elder, Bumgardner and Lemons
LLOYD H. WILLIAMS
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 0749-99-2 PER CURIAM
OCTOBER 19, 1999
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,
DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT,
ex rel. DIANE E. WILSON
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF PETERSBURG
James F. D'Alton, Jr., Judge
(William P. Robinson, Jr.; Robinson and
Anderson, on brief), for appellant.
(Ashley L. Taylor, Jr., Deputy Attorney
General; Robert B. Cousins, Jr., Senior
Assistant Attorney General; Craig M. Burshem,
Regional Special Counsel; Charles T.
Baskervill, Part-time Assistant
Commonwealth's Attorney, on brief), for
appellee.
The trial judge ruled that Lloyd H. Williams (appellant) was
in contempt for failure to pay child support arrearages.
Appellant contends on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to
prove contempt. He also argues that the trial judge erred in
refusing to admit a document into evidence. Upon reviewing the
record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code
§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.
without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of
the circuit court. See Rule 5A:27.
FACTS
By order entered on May 10, 1994, the Juvenile and Domestic
Relations District Court of the City of Petersburg ("J & DR
court") found appellant to be the father of Katrina S. Wilson.
The record indicates that the J & DR court based its finding on
blood test results indicating a 99.95% probability that appellant
was the father of the child.
The May 10, 1994 J & DR court order further provided that
appellant was to pay child support in the amount of $257 per month
to the child's mother, Diane E. Wilson, starting on April 1, 1994.
Appellant did not appeal this order, nor did he make any child
support payments pursuant to the order until October 30, 1997.
On August 29, 1996, the Division of Child Support Enforcement
(the "Division") initiated a show cause proceeding in the J & DR
court against appellant, requesting that he be found in civil
contempt for failure to pay child support. On September 16, 1997,
the J & DR court found appellant in civil contempt of court and
established the arrearage at $10,280 plus interest as of September
12, 1997.
Appellant appealed the decision to the trial court. At the
hearing held on December 30, 1998, appellant testified he
believed that in either 1980 or 1988 he had attended a
proceeding in the J & DR court concerning the issue of paternity
- 2 -
and "[i]t was dismissed. It was thrown out of court because
there wasn't enough evidence." Appellant then offered into
evidence a document ("Appellant's Exhibit 1"), asserting that
the document proved the paternity issue was decided by the
J & DR court prior to 1994.
Appellant's Exhibit 1 contains a stamp of the Petersburg
J & DR court, stating "A COPY: Teste." It also contains the
signature of the clerk of the J & DR court, indicating that it is
a certified copy from the J & DR court. However, the document has
no heading, style, or title. It contains the name of appellant on
a line entitled "NAME." Diane Wilson is listed as "SPOUSE," and
Katrina S. Wilson is listed under the heading "CHILDREN." The
document contains a case number. The date is illegible except for
what appears to be the year "-80." Page two of the document,
under the heading of disposition, states: "Petition denied; def.
denied paternity and no other substantial evidence required by VA
Law could produce no order of support entered." Appellant argued
that the document established a finding by the J & DR court in
1980 that he was not Katrina Wilson's father and that he,
therefore, did not owe child support for Katrina Wilson. The
trial judge refused to admit the document into evidence, finding
that the document did not constitute a court order adjudicating
paternity.
After hearing oral arguments, on March 9, 1999, the trial
judge entered an order finding appellant to be in civil contempt
- 3 -
of court for failure to pay child support in accordance with the
May 10, 1994 J & DR court order.
ANALYSIS
"Willful disobedience to any lawful . . . order of court is
contempt and . . . punishable as such." Board of Supervisors v.
Bazile, 195 Va. 739, 745, 80 S.E.2d 566, 571 (1954). Whether to
grant a motion for contempt is a matter left to the discretion of
the trial court which will not be reversed on appeal in the
absence of an abuse of that discretion. See Wells v. Wells, 12
Va. App. 31, 36, 401 S.E.2d 891, 894 (1991).
At the trial court hearing, appellant did not challenge the
accuracy or admissibility of the Division's exhibits, including
the May 10, 1994 J & DR court order wherein appellant was found
to be the father of Katrina Wilson and was ordered to pay child
support. Also without objection from appellant, the Division
introduced records indicating that appellant was in arrears for
failure to pay child support in the amount of $10,280 plus
interest as of September 12, 1997.
Appellant then testified concerning his belief that in 1980
or 1988, the J & DR court had dismissed a paternity suit for
insufficient evidence, offering Appellant's Exhibit 1 as proof
of this finding. The trial judge refused to admit Appellant's
Exhibit 1, finding that it was not a court order.
The trial judge did not err in refusing to admit the
document into evidence for the purpose offered. Although the
- 4 -
document is stamped with a certification from the J & DR court,
the document does not contain a style or heading naming the
parties involved or indicating that the document originated in
any court or as a result of a court proceeding. Furthermore,
the document is not signed by a judge, does not contain a
legible date, and is unclear as to what it represents.
Therefore, the document was irrelevant because it did not tend
to establish the proposition for which it was offered--that is,
that the J & DR court adjudicated the issue of paternity
sometime in 1980, finding that the evidence was insufficient to
establish that appellant is Katrina Wilson's father. "Evidence
is admissible if it is both relevant and material." Evans-Smith
v. Commonwealth, 5 Va. App. 188, 196, 361 S.E.2d 436, 441
(1987). "'Evidence is relevant if it has any logical tendency,
however slight, to establish a fact at issue in the case.'"
Braxton v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. 176, 186, 493 S.E.2d 688, 692
(1997) (quoting Ragland v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 913, 918,
434 S.E.2d 675, 678 (1993)). Cf. Hall v. Commonwealth, 15 Va.
App. 170, 175, 421 S.E.2d 887, 890 (1992) ("[A]uthenticating a
document . . . does not resolve other obstacles that may prevent
the evidence from being admissible."). Accordingly, the trial
judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to admit the
document.
Moreover, the trial judge was not required to accept
appellant's testimony that he believed he was not obligated to
- 5 -
pay child support. See Barrett v. Commonwealth, 231 Va. 102,
107, 341 S.E.2d 190, 193 (1986).
Thus, the record does not establish that appellant carried
his burden of proving that he was justified in failing to comply
with the May 10, 1994 order. See Alexander v. Alexander, 12 Va.
App. 691, 696, 406 S.E.2d 666, 669 (1991). When the evidence is
viewed in the light of the trial judge's findings, the evidence
was sufficient to prove that appellant willfully disobeyed a
lawful order of a court. Accordingly, the decision of the
circuit court is summarily affirmed.
Affirmed.
- 6 -
Lloyd H. Williams v. CW, VA DSS, DCSE, Diane Wilson
Combined Opinion