Grace C Rutledge v. E Preston Rutledge ( 2003 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Bumgardner, Kelsey and Senior Judge Hodges
GRACE C. RUTLEDGE
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 1961-02-4 PER CURIAM
FEBRUARY 19, 2003
E. PRESTON RUTLEDGE
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY
Paul F. Sheridan, Judge
(Mary Elizabeth Davis; Hofheimer/Ferrebee,
P.C., on brief), for appellant.
(Martin A. Gannon; James Ray Cottrell;
David H. Fletcher; Christopher W. Schinstock;
Kyle F. Bartol; Gannon & Cottrell, P.C., on
brief), for appellee.
Grace C. Rutledge (mother) appeals the decision of the
circuit court denying her motion for unsupervised visitation with
the parties' minor son, Andrew Rutledge, and court-ordered
therapy. On appeal, mother contends the trial court denied her
due process and substantial justice by dismissing her motion
without a hearing. Upon reviewing the record and the parties'
briefs, we conclude that this appeal is without merit.
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court.
See Rule 5A:27.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
Background
Mother and E. Preston Rutledge (father) were divorced by
final decree on February 27, 1997. In a May 10, 2000 order,
father was awarded sole legal and physical custody of Andrew.
The court allowed mother supervised visitation with Andrew on
alternate Sunday afternoons through the Visitation Services
Program of Northern Virginia Family Service, until further order
of the court. On June 7, 2002, mother moved the court for
unsupervised visitation and court-ordered therapy. After
considering mother's written motion and father's written
opposition, the court denied mother's motion.
Mother acknowledges she was informed of the court's denial
of her motion on June 26, 2002. Mother failed to file a motion
to reconsider or any other form of objection to the court's
ruling.
Analysis
This Court will not consider an argument on appeal that was
not presented to the trial court. Ohree v. Commonwealth, 26
Va. App. 299, 308, 494 S.E.2d 484, 488 (1998); Rule 5A:18. The
requirements of Rule 5A:18 apply equally to constitutional
claims. Deal v. Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 157, 161, 421 S.E.2d
897, 900 (1992). "The goal of the contemporaneous objection
rule is to avoid unnecessary appeals, reversals and mistrials by
allowing the trial judge to intelligently consider an issue and,
if necessary, to take corrective action." Campbell v.
- 2 -
Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 476, 480, 405 S.E.2d 1, 2 (1991).
Appellant failed to voice her objections before the trial court
at any time.
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. Therefore, we summarily affirm the decision of the
trial court. See Rule 5A:27.
Affirmed.
- 3 -