Teresa J. Chittum v. Gary L. Chittum ( 1998 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Bumgardner
TERESA J. CHITTUM
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 2149-97-3 PER CURIAM
MARCH 24, 1998
GARY L. CHITTUM
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY
George E. Honts, III, Judge
(M. Teresa Harris, on brief), for appellant.
Appellant submitting on brief.
(H. David Natkin, on brief), for appellee.
Appellee submitting on brief.
Teresa Chittum (mother) appeals the decision of the circuit
court denying her motion for a change in custody. Mother
contends that the trial court erred by (1) granting the motion to
strike of Gary Chittum (father); (2) failing to grant her request
for a change in custody; and (3) failing to consider the
preference of the parties' minor children. We disagree and
affirm the decision of the trial court.
Motion to Strike
"No ruling of the trial court . . . will be considered as a
basis for reversal unless the objection was stated together with
the grounds therefor at the time of the ruling, except for good
cause shown or to enable the Court of Appeals to attain the ends
of justice." Rule 5A:18.
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
On appeal, mother argues that the trial court erred when it
granted father's motion to strike. By order entered December 4,
1996, the trial court granted the motion and found that mother
"has not shown evidence of a sufficient change of circumstances
to justify a change of custody." The trial court modified
mother's visitation schedule, and ordered home studies on both
parents.
Mother endorsed the decree "Seen." The record contains no
indication that mother presented or preserved any objections to
the December 1996 order. Accordingly, Rule 5A:18 bars our
consideration of this question on appeal. Moreover, the record
does not reflect any reason to invoke the good cause or ends of
justice exceptions to Rule 5A:18.
Change in Custody
In its order entered August 13, 1997, the trial court denied
mother's request for a change of custody. Mother endorsed the
decree "Seen." No objections or exceptions to the court's ruling
were attached to the final order. The written statement of facts
does not indicate what, if any, objections mother raised at the
evidentiary hearing.
Our review of this issue is barred by Rule 5A:18. The Court
of Appeals will not consider an argument on appeal which was not
presented to the trial court. "The purpose of Rule 5A:18 is to
'afford[] "the trial court an opportunity to rule intelligently
on the issues presented, thus avoiding unnecessary appeals and
2
reversals."'" Newsome v. Newsome, 18 Va. App. 22, 24-25, 441
S.E.2d 346, 347 (1994) (citations omitted).
Accordingly, Rule 5A:18 bars our consideration of this
question on appeal. Moreover, the record does not reflect any
reason to invoke the good cause or ends of justice exceptions to
Rule 5A:18.
Failure to Consider Children's Preference
The record contains no indication mother raised this issue
before the trial court. Therefore, we do not consider this
argument on appeal. See Rule 5A:18.
Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
3