Jones v. Compton

Full title: HAROLD W. JONES v. DAVID ANDREW COMPTON and ANNIE FAYE WINGO COMPTON

Court: Court of Appeals of Virginia. Norfolk

Date published: Nov 23, 1993

Record No. 2239-92-1 (Va. Ct. App. Nov. 23, 1993)

Opinion

Record No. 2239-92-1

November 23, 1993

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH A. BONWILL SHOCKLEY, JUDGE.

Paul E. Sutton, II, for appellant.

John R. Lomax (Fine, Fine, Legum Fine, on brief), for appellees.

Present: Judges Baker, Coleman and Bray.

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia.

MEMORANDUM OPINION^_

_ Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.

JUDGE RICHARD S. BRAY.

Harold W. Jones appeals an order of the trial court declining jurisdiction over his petitions "seeking to establish paternity . . . and . . . custody" of an infant. He argues on appeal that the child's "home state" is Virginia and the court erred in finding South Carolina the "more appropriate forum" to adjudicate these issues. We disagree and affirm the order.

The parties are fully conversant with the record, and a recitation of the facts is unnecessary to this memorandum opinion.

Code § 20-130(A) permits a trial court to "decline . . . jurisdiction . . . to make a custody determination" upon a finding "that it is an inconvenient forum . . . and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum." In identifying the most acceptable forum, the statute requires the court to consider "the interest of the child," and "[f]or this purpose itmay take into account" several specific factors, including "the child's home state." Code § 20-130(C) (emphasis added).

Here, in a letter opinion and the later order, the trial judge recited numerous factual findings in support of her conclusion that South Carolina was the proper forum to decide this cause, all of which are consistent with the record and reflect appropriate consideration of the relevant statutory factors. Appellant's reliance on Middleton v. Middleton, 227 Va. 82, 314 S.E.2d 362 (1984), is misplaced. The Middleton Court determined that the trial court had erroneously applied the Virginia Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, Code §§ 20-125 to -146.Id. at 96, 99, 314 S.E.2d at 369, 371. In contrast, this record evinces scrupulous adherence to both the letter and spirit of the statute by the trial court.

Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

Affirmed.