COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Elder, Bumgardner and Lemons
STEVE HALL, CHERI HALL
AND STEVEN SHANE HALL
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record Nos. 1913-98-3 and 2467-98-3 PER CURIAM
JUNE 8, 1999
JENNIFER KELLY DANDENEAU
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY
Colin R. Gibb, Judge
(Samuel V. S. Swindell; Joseph Graham
Painter, Jr.; Kratman, Swindell & Crenshaw,
P.C.; Painter & DeMuth, on brief), for
appellants.
(K. Mike Fleenor, Jr.; Crowell, Nuckols,
Layman, Aust & Fleenor, on brief), for
appellee.
Steven Shane Hall (Hall) and his parents appeal the decision
of the circuit court ordering Hall to pay certain travel expenses
connected with the visitation of his children, Steven Chase Hall
(Steven) and Christian Rhett Hall (Christian) with their mother,
Jennifer Kelly Dandeneau (Dandeneau). On appeal, Hall contends
that the trial court erred by (1) requiring Hall to pay all travel
expenses for the children's visitation with Dandeneau in the
summer of 1998; (2) requiring Hall to pay one-half of all
subsequent travel costs; and (3) awarding Dandeneau too lengthy
*Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code § 17-116.010,
this opinion is not designated for publication.
periods of visitation. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of
the parties, we conclude that these appeals are without merit.
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court.
See Rule 5A:27.
"In matters concerning custody and visitation, the welfare
and best interests of the child are the 'primary, paramount, and
controlling consideration(s).'" Kogon v. Ulerick, 12 Va. App.
595, 596, 405 S.E.2d 441, 442 (1991) (citation omitted).
In matters of a child's welfare, trial
courts are vested with broad discretion in
making the decisions necessary to guard and
to foster a child's best interests. A trial
court's determination of matters within its
discretion is reversible on appeal only for
an abuse of that discretion, and a trial
court's decision will not be set aside
unless plainly wrong or without evidence to
support it.
Farley v. Farley, 9 Va. App. 326, 328, 387 S.E.2d 794, 795
(1990) (citations omitted). The record on appeal includes no
transcript, but contains a Revised Written Statement and the
trial court's written order.
Travel Expenses
Hall contends that the trial court failed to make a finding
that it was in the best interests of the children that he pay
the entire travel costs incurred during the 1998 summer
visitation and share one-half the expenses for future
visitation. We find no merit in these contentions.
-2-
The parties agreed in mediation that Dandeneau would have
five weeks of visitation with the parties' sons in Oregon
beginning in July 1998. At trial, the parties presented
conflicting evidence concerning when Dandeneau told Hall she
wanted visitation to begin, although it was clear that Dandeneau
told Hall no later than May 1998 that she wanted her visitation
to start during the first week of July. At some point, Hall
resisted scheduling visitation, based upon "reported physical
problems with the children." Evidence presented at the hearing
indicated that one doctor advised against air travel to Oregon
by the boys and that two other doctors expressed concerns about
the interruption in Steven's therapy schedule.
It is clear that the trial court considered the best
interests of the children when setting the visitation schedule.
Based upon the evidence presented during the hearing, the trial
court ordered that Steven's visitation be delayed until August 1
and curtailed in length to ten days. Christian's visit was also
shortened from the agreed upon five weeks, from July 18 until
August 10.
We reject Hall's contention that the trial court was
required to make a specific finding that it was in the best
interests of the children to require him to pay the challenged
travel expenses. The trial court's broad discretion to fashion
the relief necessary to promote the children's best interests,
based upon the current circumstances of the parties, included
-3-
the authority to order the individual parents to bear the costs
and responsibilities related to the travel necessitated by
visitation. See Farley, 9 Va. App. at 328, 387 S.E.2d at 795.
See also Code § 20-108.
There was evidence that the parties agreed that Dandeneau
would have five weeks of visitation during the summer of 1998.
While Hall alleges that the trial court ordered him to bear the
costs of transporting the children to Oregon and back as a
punitive measure, nothing in the record before us supports that
assertion. The order places the responsibility of getting the
boys to and from Oregon on Hall for the 1998 summer visitation,
but it also allows Hall to either pay for airfare or drive the
boys.
Hall also contends that imposing travel expenses on him for
1998 was an adjustment in child support which failed to satisfy
the statutory requirements set out in Code § 20-108.1(B). We
find no indication that Hall raised this argument before the
trial court. "The Court of Appeals will not consider an
argument on appeal which was not presented to the trial court."
Ohree v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 299, 308, 494 S.E.2d 484, 488
(1998). See Rule 5A:18. The record does not reflect any reason
to invoke the good cause or ends of justice exceptions to Rule
5A:18. We do not consider this argument further.
-4-
For the reasons previously set out, we also find no abuse
of discretion in the trial court's decision ordering the parents
to share future travel expenses evenly.
Length of Visitation
We find no merit in Hall's contention that the trial court
erred by implementing a visitation schedule reached by the
parents in mediation. The trial court retains jurisdiction to
adjust visitation as required by circumstances in the future.
See Code § 20-108.
Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily
affirmed.
Affirmed.
-5-