George Henson, Jr. v. Goochland Dept. Social Svc ( 2003 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Annunziata, McClanahan and Senior Judge Coleman
GEORGE HENSON, JR.
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 0151-03-2 PER CURIAM
JULY 8, 2003
GOOCHLAND DEPARTMENT
OF SOCIAL SERVICES
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GOOCHLAND COUNTY
J. Peyton Farmer, Judge Designate
(George Henson, Jr., pro se, on brief).
No brief for appellee.
On September 19, 2002, the trial court denied George Henson,
Jr.'s motion to set aside a November 3, 1998 judgment. On appeal,
Henson contends the trial court erred in so ruling. Upon
reviewing the record and opening brief, we conclude that this
appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the
trial court's decision. See Rule 5A:27.
We have discerned from the record that in 1997 the Goochland
County Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court (juvenile
court) ruled, in light of a DNA test, that appellant was not the
biological father of Ebony Cowan. That same court also suspended
appellant's visitation with Ebony.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
Later, appellant moved the juvenile court for a second DNA
test to discern paternity. The juvenile court denied the motion.
The circuit court upheld that decision by order dated November 3,
1998.
In September 2002, appellant filed a "Motion to Reinstate
Case on Docket With After Discovered Evidence" with the circuit
court. By order dated September 19, 2002, the circuit court
denied the motion for the following reason: "The Order of this
Court, dated November 3, 1998 was a final order and this Court
does not have jurisdiction to vacate it (Rule 1:1)." Appellant
appeals from that decision.
Rule 1:1 reads in pertinent part: "All final judgments,
orders, and decrees, irrespective of terms of court, shall
remain under the control of the trial court and subject to be
modified, vacated, or suspended for twenty-one days after the
date of entry, and no longer." Appellant's motion to reinstate
was filed long after the passage of twenty-one days from entry of
the November 3, 1998 final order. Accordingly, the circuit court
did not err in ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the
motion.
Affirmed.
- 2 -