Colleen Beth Higgins v. Laurie John Pearce
1965162
| Va. Ct. App. | Nov 28, 2017Background
- Parents separated in 2015; JDR court awarded joint legal custody but primary physical custody to Laurie Pearce; Colleen Higgins appealed to the Henrico County Circuit Court for a de novo trial.
- Trial was scheduled for one day; Higgins sought a continuance and two days about one month before trial; trial court conditioned a continuance on both parties agreeing to follow a temporary GAL-recommended custody/visitation plan — parties did not agree.
- At trial, the court strictly managed and limited each party’s allotted time; Higgins repeatedly renewed requests for more time and additional cross-examination.
- Both parties presented evidence; at the conclusion the trial court awarded sole legal and physical custody to Pearce and set visitation for Higgins.
- Higgins appealed, arguing denial of a de novo trial/due process, violation of parental constitutional rights and equal protection, improper denial of continuance, and abdication of authority to the GAL.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Higgins) | Defendant's Argument (Pearce) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether circuit court provided a full and fair de novo trial | Trial time limits and restrictions on cross-examination denied a true de novo trial and due process | Court held a de novo trial, parties presented evidence, and no record showing JDR influence | Court: No error—trial was de novo and evidence was considered |
| Whether time limits and limits on cross-examination violated due process | Insufficient time to present case and cross-examine appellee deprived Higgins of day in court | Time limits were mutual (one-day setting); court managed time and granted additional latitude; no arbitrary bar on cross-examination | Court: No due process violation; trial court acted within discretion |
| Whether awarding sole legal and physical custody violated parental due process / equal protection | Award effectively terminated parental rights without required protections; best-interests standard here violates equal protection | Custody dispute between parents calls for best-interests analysis; Higgins retained legal parent status and visitation rights | Court: No constitutional violation; best-interests standard appropriate and applied |
| Whether denial of continuance and GAL condition amounted to abdication of judicial authority | Denial prejudiced Higgins; conditioning continuance on following GAL plan ceded control to GAL | Continuance within trial court discretion; recommending/ordering interim adherence to GAL plan is permissible and not an abdication; final decision remained with court | Court: No abuse of discretion; no abdication of authority to GAL |
Key Cases Cited
- Copeland v. Todd, 282 Va. 183 (Va. 2011) (standard of review for statutory and constitutional interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parent-child relationship is a protected liberty interest)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1972) (due process protections before state dismemberment of family)
- Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246 (U.S. 1978) (distinction between adoption/termination and custody determinations)
- L.F. v. Breit, 285 Va. 163 (Va. 2013) (parent-child relationship as constitutionally protected liberty interest)
- Basham v. Terry, 199 Va. 817 (Va. 1958) (trial court discretion over cross-examination scope)
- Campbell v. Campbell, 49 Va. App. 498 (Va. Ct. App. 2007) (improper total bar on cross-examination is abuse of discretion)
- Haugen v. Shenandoah Valley Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 274 Va. 27 (Va. 2007) (continuance decisions within trial court discretion)
- Bottoms v. Bottoms, 249 Va. 410 (Va. 1995) (trial courts should consider GAL recommendations)
- Wiencko v. Takayama, 62 Va. App. 217 (Va. Ct. App. 2013) (custody award to one parent did not violate equal protection when based on statutory factors)