A Carluzzo Rochkind & Smith note: Following is an article by Virginia Lawyers Weekly. We did not handle this case, but it brings up important marital points your divorce lawyer should be familiar with. For more than 30 years our divorce lawyers in Manassas have helped clients with such matters in Prince William County, Fairfax County, Woodbridge, and throughout Northern Virginia. If you have any questions or would like to schedule an appointment, please contact our law firm at (703) 361-0776.
Domestic Relations: Wife fails to show errors during divorce proceeding
By Virginia Lawyers Weekly – 4/30/2024
Where the wife argued the circuit committed multiple errors during a divorce proceeding, but her arguments were not raised below or were contrary to the law, they were rejected.
Background
Amy Lynn Childress, pro se, appeals a final decree of divorce from her former husband, Jimmie DeWitt Childress III.
Due process
Wife argues that the circuit court violated her due process rights by appointing a guardian ad litem, or GAL, for her “on a mere request by the husband’s counsel and its own motion” and a committee when she was incarcerated for only a “short period of time” and had not been convicted of a felony. Assuming without deciding that the circuit court erred, any error was harmless.
The record reflects that wife had notice of the hearings and was present at most of them. Wife had an opportunity to be heard and proceeded pro se after her second attorney withdrew. She filed numerous motions and presented arguments to the circuit court. Considering the totality of the record, wife received all the process due her.
Waiver
Wife complains that the circuit court awarded husband “essentially … all of the matrimonial assets” and required her to pay him $96,215. She further alleges that the circuit court “attempted to render [her obligation] non-dischargeable in bankruptcy by falsely characterizing it as support.” She emphasizes that the ruling left her with no place to live and in “substantial” debt. Finally, wife contends that the circuit court failed to consider the relevant statutory factors under Code § 20-107.3(E).
Although wife sought vacatur and reconsideration of the final decree of divorce, she did not raise the specific arguments below that she now raises on appeal. Moreover, with respect to her equitable distribution arguments, wife does not invoke the good cause or ends of justice exceptions to Rule 5A:18. Accordingly, this court will not consider wife’s equitable distribution arguments. Similarly, wife’s arguments regarding the circuit court’s support awards were not preserved for appeal.
Finances
Wife argues that the circuit court erred in accepting husband’s testimony about his finances. She contends that “his submissions” to the circuit court were “patently fraudulent and false.” She alleges that husband was not “losing money” with his law practice and had more income than reported. Wife claims that she had “[n]o opportunity to object” and presumably asks this court to consider her arguments regarding husband’s testimony under the good cause exception to Rule 5A:18. This record does not support wife’s contention.
The circuit court stated that the purpose of the hearing when husband presented the final decree of divorce for entry was to give wife “a chance to either endorse the decree or object to the entry of the decree.” The transcript does not reflect the arguments wife now raises. Moreover, none of wife’s post-trial motions raised these specific arguments with the circuit court. Therefore, the good cause exception does not apply, and Rule 5A:18 prevents this court from considering wife’s arguments on appeal.
Custody and visitation
Wife argues that the circuit court erred by not considering custody and visitation because, under Code § 16.1-244(A), the City of Lynchburg Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court was divested of jurisdiction once the divorce proceeding began. Based on its reading of the plain language in the statute, this court disagrees.
The plain language of Code § 16.1-244(A) considers both when custody and visitation is raised by the pleadings and when a hearing date is set. The JDR court is not divested of jurisdiction unless both of these requirements are satisfied. Because the record establishes that the second required condition of Code § 16.1-244(A) was not met, the circuit court had no authority under that statute to divest the JDR court of jurisdiction; it could merely choose how to exercise its own concurrent jurisdiction.
Affirmed.
Concurring/dissenting opinion
Chaney, J., concurring in part, and dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority’s conclusion that any error in the circuit court’s GAL and committee appointments is harmless, and the circuit court’s equitable distribution and support rulings were not preserved. However, under Code § 16.1-244(A), the circuit court’s refusal to address the parties’ child custody and visitation issues was error.
Childress v. Childress, Record No. 1374-22-3, Apr. 9, 2024. CAV (unpublished opinion) (Huff). From the Circuit Court of the City of Lynchburg (Irvine; Chaney, concurring in part and dissenting in part). Amy Lynn Childress, pro se, for appellant. Jim D. Childress III, pro se, for appellee. VLW 024-7-114. 19 pp.
If you are in need of experienced divorce lawyers who gets results, please contact us online or by calling 703-361-0776.
Divorce lawyers in Manassas serving Fairfax County, Prince William County, and all of Northern Virginia.
