By Rob Hagy, Law Offices of Rob Hagy, P.C., 154 Hansen Road, Suite 202B, Charlottesville, Virginia. Call (434)293-4562 for more information or email for more information at email@example.com. I look forward to helping you!
The information provided on this web blog is public information and is not individualized legal advice. Do not take any legal action on any information contained in this blog!!! Always consulting with an attorney in your state about your legal issues. The presentation of information on this blog does not establish any form of attorney-client relationship with my firm or with me. While I have attempted to maintain the information on this blog as accurately as possible, this information may contain errors or omissions, for which I disclaim any liability. Case law from other jurisdictions discussed here are discussed for comparative purposes only. The author is licensed to practice only in the Commonwealth of Virginia and not in any other state.
Despite the foregoing, this material could be considered to be ADVERTISING MATERIAL. The responsible party for this blog is Robert R. Hagy, II Esq., an attorney licensed to practice law in Virginia, of the Law Offices of Rob Hagy, P.C., whose address is 154 Hansen Rd., Suite 202-B, Charlottesville, Virginia 22911.
My heart goes out to you. If you are reading this blog, you may be about to go through a divorce. And if you are I'm truly sorry. I know it is an emotional roller coaster. I'm sure you are feeling shock, surprise, saddness, anger, and/or despair just to name a few of the feelings you might be experiencing. Unfortunately, it is going to be a while before the emotional roller coaster stops. But it will stop. And step by step, one day at a time, life will move on and this experience will eventually just be a bad memory. You will be able to breathe again. You will be able to enjoy yourself, laugh, and make new memories. So for now just hang on and keep going. It will eventually get better.
-Rob Hagy, Charlottesville Divorce Lawyer For more help, please call me at 434.293.4562 or email me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
In the case of Koss v. Brown, the Virginia Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, ruled that the trial court properly restricted father's telephone visitation with children. Pursuant to a previous court order, the father was permitted to call the children at a certain time on days that he did not have visitation with them. The order stated that the telephone calls would last no longer than fifteen minutes per child, or a total of thirty minutes if father spoke with the children at the same time. Father is a native of Germany and wants his children to learn the German language and learn about their heritage. During his telephone calls, he worked with the children on their German homework. In 2012 and 2013, the calls between father and the children became strained. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court modified father’s telephone calls by changing the times for the calls and ordering that father shall not do German homework with the children during his telephone calls with them.
Father contends he should be allowed to do what he wants during his telephone calls with the children, including helping them with their German homework. The trial court acknowledged that father’s German heritage is important to him. However, the trial court found that doing the German homework over the telephone was “causing a great deal of difficulty and a great deal of trouble and . . . [was] poisoning all of the relationships here.” There was evidence of the children crying and of father yelling at them and calling them “stupid” and “liars.” Mother testified that the calls were disruptive to their household. The trial court held that it was not in the best interests of the children to do the German homework over the telephone because it was “causing a great deal of difficulty and stress.” The trial court concluded, “It would be much better for the children to know less German and have a more open relationship with their father and their father to have a better relationship with their mother than it is that they learn more German.” The record supports the trial court’s findings that it was in the children’s best interests not to do German homework on the telephone with their father. The trial court clarified that father could assist the children with their German homework when he visited with them, but not during phone calls. As the trial court explained to father, “it’s not really your time.” The children are “on their mother’s time” and father is “getting a phone call.”
In the case of Bullock v. Bullock, the Virginia Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, ruled that a trial court did not err in applying the doctrine of res judicata to dismiss a show cause. In 2011, father appeared before the circuit court and argued that the court should apply certain credits to the amount of his arrears. The circuit court denied his request based on res judicata. Father did not appeal that decision; instead, he filed another show cause summons in the juvenile and domestic relations district court. Father and mother are the same parties in this case and the previous cases. The issues and facts have not changed, as father continues to make the same argument that he should receive credits toward his arrears. The lower courts have adjudicated arrears, and father may not seek credits toward those previously adjudicated arrears.
In the case of In re Marriage of Popa and Garcia, the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, Sixth Division, ruled that a custodial parent's violation of the terms of a custody and visitation order does not excuse the non-custodial parent from paying child support. But, active and extreme interference with the noncustodial parent's relationship with the children by the custodial parent may establish a
substantial change in circumstance that warrants modification of the
noncustodial parent's child support obligation.
-Rob Hagy, Charlottesville Custody and Visitation and Child Support Lawyer. For help with your questions about child support or custody and visitation, please contact me at (434)293-4562 or email me at email@example.com.
In the case of Bernard v. Bernard, the Virginia Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, ruled that the trial court properly awarded sole legal custody of parties’ children to father and ordered that mom’s visitation with the children be supervised. This was a modification proceeding. In the prior order the trial court recalled mother’s prior diagnosis of “Delusional Disorder, Jealous Type” and the court still perceived “questionable behavior” on mother’s part. The trial court concluded mother “has ways to go in her treatment.” As a result, the trial court ordered mother to continue counseling and to follow all treatment recommendations. The children were ordered to continue counseling. The parents were ordered to participate in co-parent counseling. It was further ordered that neither parent disparage the other in the children’s presence, “nor discuss disputed issues with the children, nor discuss the divorce litigation.” Mother was also ordered not to discuss with the children her perceived fear of the father.
Based on a complaint made to CPS that the children were underweight and malnourished, mother filed a motion for a change of custody and to award mother full custody of the children. The children’s guardian ad litem moved the trial court to modify the prior order to award sole legal custody to father and to suspend or restrict mother’s visitation.
The court found that the children were not malnourished; the mother’s thinking and conduct towards father and the children was not normal; and mother suffers from “some mental abnormalities . . . .” Mother’s “continued agenda of sabotage” has thwarted father’s role as primary custodian of the children. The trial court accepted the testimony of the parties adult daugther that mother continues to degrade father to the children, telling them one child is malnourished, that father has denied them food, that father had beaten mother, that father used child pornography, such that the daughters should keep their bedroom doors shut when father is present, and that father had “paid off” people to win custody.
The court further found the children are rude and disrespectful to father when they return from visitation with mother and that both girls expressed a desire to live with mother. Further, the court opined “the court is convinced that unless [mother] is stopped the girls will eventually be harmed emotionally.” The court concluded that mother has not changed her conduct. While she has participated in therapy, “she has not been able to internalize what she has learned in these sessions.” The court concluded that the girls be “isolated from [mother’s] vitriol against [father].”
From this record, the Virginia Court of Appeals found ample evidence to support that mother suffered from a mental illness that was harmful to her children, she sabotaged father’s parenting, the children’s preference to reside with her was not in their best interests, mother’s behavior will eventually be emotionally harmful to the children, and the trial court properly granted sole custody to father with supervised visitation to mother.
-Rob Hagy, Charlottesville Custody and Visitation Lawyer. For help with your children's custody and visitation needs, please contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org or (434)293-4562.
In the case of Pliuskaitis v. Pliuskaitis, the Virginia Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, ruled that the trial court properly determined that husband converted joint funds totaling $48,149.29 from a home equity line of credit and $3,000.00 from a joint savings account to personal use and not for a proper purpose. While husband testified about how the funds were used and testified the funds were used for a proper purpose, he presented no documentation for these expenditures. In addition, the husband's unauthorized investment of marital funds in a business venture did not constitute a proper purpose any more than his unauthorized use of such marital funds to gamble at a casino to increase the family bank account would constitute a proper purpose.
-Rob Hagy, Charlottesville Divorce Lawyer. For help with your property distribution questions, please email me at email@example.com or call me at (434)293-4562.
Virginia Code Section 20-108.2 This provision of Virginia law sets forth the child support guidelines-a table of reference for determining the base monthly child support obligation.
Virginia Code Section 20-124.3 This statute sets forth the factors that a court will consider in divorce proceedings, temporary proceedings, or modification proceedings to determine what custody and visitation arrangement would be best for the child or children involved.