COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis
PIERRE JOLIGARD
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 2533-96-4 PER CURIAM
MAY 20, 1997
CHRISTINA M. JOLIGARD
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY
Paul F. Sheridan, Judge
(Pierre Joligard, pro se, on briefs).
(Leo R. Andrews, Jr., on brief), for
appellee.
Pierre Joligard (father) appeals the decision of the circuit
court modifying visitation and awarding attorney's fees to
Christina Joligard (mother). Father contends that the trial
court erred by (1) ordering custody and visitation without
substantial, competent, and credible evidence; (2) reducing
visitation without finding a material change in circumstances;
(3) reducing visitation time without applying the proper
evidentiary standard; and (4) awarding fees without proper
notice. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we
conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we
summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. Rule 5A:27.
"In matters concerning custody and visitation, the welfare
and best interests of the child are the 'primary, paramount, and
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
controlling consideration[s].'" Kogon v. Ulerick, 12 Va. App.
595, 596, 405 S.E.2d 441, 442 (1991) (citation omitted). "The
trial court, in the interest of the children's welfare, may
modify visitation rights of a parent based upon a change in
circumstances." Fariss v. Tsapel, 3 Va. App. 439, 442, 350
S.E.2d 670, 672 (1986). See Keel v. Keel, 225 Va. 606, 611-12,
303 S.E.2d 917, 921 (1983). The trial court is vested with broad
discretion to make the decisions necessary to safeguard and
promote the child's best interests, and its decision will not be
set aside unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.
See Farley v. Farley, 9 Va. App. 326, 327-28, 387 S.E.2d 794, 795
(1990).
Father contends that there had been material changes in
circumstances since the trial court's award of custody to mother
in April 1995. Father alleged that the parties' minor child had
been hospitalized for a drug overdose, that the overdose was
caused by mother's faulty adherence to the view that the child
needed to receive psychotropic drugs, and that the child had
failed to thrive physically while in mother's care. Father also
alleged that mother's relocation outside Virginia and her
relationship with a new boyfriend were material changes.
The trial judge considered the evidence and heard the
testimony of the parties. The trial judge was not persuaded by
the father's arguments and rejected the father's petition. "The
credibility of the witnesses is within the exclusive province of
2
the finder of fact because it uniquely has the opportunity to see
and hear the witnesses testify and weigh their credibility based
upon their appearance, demeanor and manner of testifying." Estes
v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 520, 524, 382 S.E.2d 491, 493 (1989).
The court found no change in circumstances warranting a change
of custody from mother. We find no error in that decision.
Father also contends that the trial court erred in reducing
his visitation without finding a material change of circumstances
and that the decision was not supported by substantial, competent
and credible evidence.
The court found that the parties were demonstrably unable to
work together to reach decisions concerning the child's welfare
and that one parent needed to be completely in charge. The trial
court also found, and evidence in the record documents, that the
substantial animosity between the parties and extended family
made visitations disruptive. Furthermore, the court found that
traveling from Pennsylvania to Virginia three weekends a month
destabilized the place of primary custody and was not conducive
to the child's best interests. The trial court's decision
maintaining custody with mother and reducing father's visitation
to two weekends a month was based upon the child's best interests
and was not plainly wrong.
We reject father's claim that he lacked notice concerning
the award of fees for the guardian ad litem. It is unclear
whether father's objection relates to those costs previously
3
awarded against father and excepted from discharge by the federal
bankruptcy court or the additional costs charged at the
completion of the hearing. Father was demonstrably aware that
the parties bore responsibility for payment to the guardian ad
litem and these charges remained outstanding. We find no abuse
of discretion in the trial court's award.
Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily
affirmed.
Affirmed.
4