COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Koontz, Bray and Senior Judge Hodges
SARAH ALMIRA REYNOLDS
A/K/A SARAH ALLEN-DITTMER
v. Record No. 2092-94-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION *
PER CURIAM
FRED ANDREW REYNOLDS MAY 23, 1995
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
FAIRFAX COUNTY
Jane Marum Roush, Judge
(Lori J. Lustig, on briefs), for appellant.
(Emilia Castillo, on brief), for appellee.
Sarah Almira Reynolds (mother) appeals the decision of the
circuit court refusing her motion to modify custody of her two
youngest children and deciding other issues. Mother raises three
issues on appeal: (1) whether the trial court abused its
discretion in assessing the credibility of the witnesses; (2)
whether the trial court erred by ordering a six-month review of
the visitation schedule without setting any criteria for the
review; and (3) whether the trial court abused its discretion in
setting limited times for mother's visitation.
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 of custody, visitation, and
related child care issues, the court's
paramount concern is always the best
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
interests of the child. . . . 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, 327-28, 387 S.E.2d 794, 795
(1990).
I. Witnesses' Credibility
"On review the 'decision of the trial judge is peculiarly
entitled to respect for [she] saw the parties, heard the
witnesses testify and was in closer touch with the situation than
the [appellate] Court, which is limited to a review of the
written record.'" Sutherland v. Sutherland, 14 Va. App. 42, 44,
414 S.E.2d 617, 618 (1992) (citation omitted).
Contrary to appellant's contention that the trial court
failed to make specific findings as to the evidence, testimony or
demeanor of the witnesses, the trial court noted "there was a
great deal of conflicting evidence" concerning mother's new
husband. The court then stated:
I find that the allegations contained in Mr.
Reynolds's [father's] Motion to Modify
Visitation . . . are supported by credible
evidence. In short, I conclude that [father]
was justifiably concerned about whether
[mother's new husband] would be present
during the children's visitation with
[mother].
Moreover, the trial court expressed serious reservations
2
concerning the conclusions drawn by mother's expert as to whether
sexual abuse had occurred: "it seems to me that without even
hearing cross-examination that your evaluation is very incomplete
to be able to draw any kind of conclusion along those lines."
In this matter, "'[t]he credibility of witnesses was crucial
to the determination of the facts, and the findings of the trial
[judge] based upon the judge's evaluation of the testimony of
witnesses heard ore tenus are entitled to great weight.'" Aviles
v. Aviles, 14 Va. App. 360, 366, 416 S.E.2d 716, 719 (1992)
(citation omitted). The trial court was entitled to believe
father's witnesses, whose testimony was competent and not
inherently incredible. Therefore, we will not disturb the trial
court's credibility determination, as we find no abuse of the
court's discretion.
II. Criteria for Review of Visitation
The trial court found that father's concerns about the well-
being of his children when visiting mother and her new husband
were supported by credible evidence. The paramount focus in all
matters related to child custody remains the best interests of
the children. See, e.g., Farley, 9 Va. App. at 327-28, 387
S.E.2d at 795. In the future, "[t]he court, in the exercise of
its sound discretion, may alter or change custody or the terms of
visitation when subsequent events render such action appropriate
for the [children's] welfare." Eichelberger v. Eichelberger, 2
Va. App. 409, 412, 345 S.E.2d 10, 12 (1986). Therefore, we
3
reject mother's assertion that the trial court "failed to set a
standard of review by which future rulings can be issued or
appealed."
III. Limitations on Mother's Visitation
The trial court is entitled to use its discretion in making
determinations concerning visitation and its decision is
reversible only upon a showing that the court abused that
discretion. M.E.D. v. J.P.M., 3 Va. App. 391, 398, 350 S.E.2d
215, 220 (1986). The schedule approved by the trial court
alternates visitation between the parties on weekends, federal
holidays, Thanksgiving, and Christmas Eve; allows both parties to
see the children on Christmas Day; and accommodates Father's Day,
Mother's Day, and birthdays. We find no abuse of discretion in
the trial court's decision to grant mother only two weeks of
visitation during the summer, as mother testified that she wanted
"[a] week, or two weeks probably" for summer visitation.
Therefore, mother has failed to demonstrate an abuse of
discretion by the trial court in the setting of the visitation
schedule.
Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily
affirmed.
Affirmed.
4