| PETER J. TEDFORD v. LEANNE DEAN-BRYANT | | | | The Court held that "proving the elements of |
| Record No. 1340-03-4 | | | | contempt cannot, and does not, divest the |
| COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA | | | | trial court of its discretion to enforce its orders |
| September 28, 2004, Decided | | | | through that power." It is well established that "use |
| The father then moved in the Warren County JDR | | | | of contempt powers is clearly subject to the |
| court to amend the custody and visitation orders, | | | | discretion of the trial court." Sapp v. Commonwealth, |
| and moved for contempt. The JDR court declined to | | | | 263 Va. 415, 425, 559 S.E.2d 645, 650 (2002). Even |
| hold the mother in contempt, denied both parties' | | | | where a court has found that a party to litigation has |
| requests for attorney fees. The father appealed | | | | violated an order of the court and could be held in |
| the issues of custody, visitation, contempt, attorney's | | | | contempt, the trial court retains its discretion |
| fees, and costs of the guardian ad litem to the | | | | whether to enter the finding of contempt and |
| Warren County Circuit Court. The trial court entered | | | | impose sanctions. Wells v. Wells, 12 Va. App. 31, 36, |
| a final order further modifying visitation, but again | | | | 401 S.E.2d 891, 894, 7 Va. Law Rep. 1827 (1991). |
| denying the father's petition for a change in custody. | | | | Simply put, proving the elements of contempt |
| On its own motion, the trial court modified the child | | | | cannot, and does not, divest the trial court of its |
| support. | | | | discretion to enforce its orders through that power. |
| - Whether the trial court erred by increasing child | | | | 3) Whether the trial court erred in |
| support? | | | | awarding attorney's fees to the mother? |
| - Whether the trial court erred in failing to hold | | | | The Court held that "An award of attorney's fees is |
| the mother in contempt of court for violating the | | | | a matter submitted to the sound discretion of the |
| custody order? | | | | trial court and is reviewable on appeal only for an |
| - Whether the trial court erred in awarding attorney's | | | | abuse of discretion." Further held that "the fact that |
| fees to the mother? | | | | the trial court determined that the legal requirements |
| - Whether the trial court erred in awarding the | | | | for a change in custody were not met and that no |
| guardian ad litem fees? | | | | benefit flowed from the litigation to the family |
| 1) Whether the trial court erred by | | | | beyond that which had occurred in the JDR court, it |
| increasing child support? | | | | was not an abuse of discretion for the court to |
| The court held that there was no appeal on the issue | | | | award the mother attorney's fees which, incidentally, |
| of child support, the circuit court erred in addressing | | | | represented less than one-third of the amount |
| the matter and entering an order modifying child | | | | requested." |
| support. The Warren County Circuit Court never | | | | 4) Whether the trial court erred in |
| had jurisdiction over the divorce matter and, thus, | | | | awarding the guardian ad litem fees? |
| had no jurisdiction over child support as part of any | | | | The Court held that "the award of guardian ad litem |
| divorce proceeding. In reaching resolution on the | | | | fees, like the award of any attorney fees, is |
| custody and visitation issues, therefore, the Warren | | | | committed to the sound discretion of the trial court." |
| County Circuit Court was solely exercising appellate | | | | That the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in |
| jurisdiction over the JDR cases. In this appellate | | | | modifying the 1998 child support order, and vacate |
| capacity, the circuit court was bound to limit its order | | | | that modification accordingly. Affirmed, in part, and |
| to those issues the parties had appealed. Because | | | | reversed, in part. |
| no appeal was taken on the issue of child support, | | | | Disclaimer: |
| the issue could not have been raised for the first | | | | These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law |
| time in the circuit court proceedings. | | | | Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of |
| 2) Whether the trial court erred in failing | | | | the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be |
| to hold the mother in contempt of court for violating | | | | consulted for their authoritative content. |
| the custody order? | | | | |