Smith v. McPeak

Full title: RHONDA SMITH v. KOLI J. McPEAK

Court: Court of Appeals of Virginia. Salem

Date published: Jul 6, 1993

Record No. 1699-92-3 (Va. Ct. App. Jul. 6, 1993)

Opinion

Record No. 1699-92-3

July 6, 1993

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY A. DOW OWENS, JUDGE.

Margaret E. Stone (Edwin C. Stone; Stone, Hamrick, Harrison Turk, P.C., on brief), for appellant.

Debra Fitzgerald-O'Connell (Deborah W. Dobbins; Gilmer, Sadler, Ingram, Sutherland Hutton, on brief), for appellee.

Present: Chief Judge Moon, Judges Barrow and Koontz.

Argued at Salem, Virginia.

MEMORANDUM OPINION^_

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

JUDGE BERNARD G. BARROW.

In this appeal from an order limiting a mother's visitation with her child, we hold that evidence supports the trial court's determination that the limitations are in the child's best interest.

Since his birth in 1980, the child's relationship with his mother has been marred by abuse. The mother abused drugs and alcohol until she sought professional help in 1986. The mother's second husband sexually molested the child.

The mother's visitation with the child has been subject to supervision and has not been problem free. At one point, the father reported that the child acted nervously and behaved uncontrollably after visits with the mother. A psychological evaluation led to the inference that abuse had occurred while the child was in the mother's home. When visitation was limited to weekly telephone contact under the supervision of a counselor and by mail, the child reportedly did not wish to speak with his mother. Some of the mail the mother sent to the child expressed anger and grief over the child's accusations of sexual molestation.

After a hearing, the trial court restricted visitation by the mother to letters screened by the guardian ad litem. The trial court based its decision on the testimony of a youth services clinician who had met with the child on four occasions, statements made by the child to the guardian ad litem, and the trial court's interview of the child in the presence of the guardian ad litem. Common to each of these considerations was the persistent assertion by the child that he did not wish to visit with his mother.

The strong and unequivocal desires of the twelve-year-old child, in light of his experiences while living with the mother, support the trial court's decision. See Hall v. Hall, 210 Va. 668, 672, 173 S.E.2d 865, 868 (1970). Therefore, the decree is affirmed.

Affirmed.