Pablo Jesus Lijeron v. Christian Paola Lijeron, 1344164

Child B. born May 2012; parents separated after living with paternal grandparents in a three‑bed townhouse; mother moved out in May 2015.
Mother lied about an April 2015 trip and initially denied father contact with B.; father filed a custody petition and a motion to prevent removal in May 2015.
J&DR court entered an order awarding joint legal custody and an alternating physical‑custody schedule; father appealed to the Fairfax Circuit Court.
At the circuit hearing, the court found mother had been dishonest and sometimes uncooperative, but had two college degrees, a more consistent schedule, and was willing to share custody if father relocated.
The court found father lacked economic independence and lived with his parents (who were often unavailable), and had an unpredictable work schedule; it awarded joint legal custody but primary physical custody to mother.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the circuit court did not abuse its discretion and denying mother’s request for appellate fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Lijeron)	Defendant's Argument (Christian Lijeron)	Held
Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in awarding primary physical custody to mother	Court’s custody decision inconsistent with evidence and its factual findings; court improperly weighed father’s maturity/economic independence	Circuit court properly considered statutory best‑interest factors and relevant additional factors	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; findings supported by evidence
Whether the court improperly considered father’s maturity/economic independence as a factor	This was irrelevant/improper and unsupported by evidence	Trial court based finding on father living with parents, recent job loss, insurance lapse, and availability of caregivers	Affirmed — evidence supported court’s finding about maturity/economic independence
Whether the court’s findings were internally inconsistent (e.g., noting mother’s misconduct but awarding her custody)	Negative findings about mother compelled denying her primary custody	Best‑interest standard governs; custodial decisions are not punitive and may balance negative and positive factors	Affirmed — court considered required factors and emphasized child’s best interests
Whether appellate attorney’s fees should be awarded to mother	Appeal was meritless and generated unnecessary expense	Father raised appropriate substantial issues on appeal	Denied — appeal not frivolous; no fee award

Brown v. Brown, 30 Va. App. 532 (discretionary custody determinations; trial court has broad discretion)
Rubino v. Rubino, 64 Va. App. 256 (appellate review standard for custody findings)
Farley v. Farley, 9 Va. App. 326 (standard for reversal of custody determinations)
Piatt v. Piatt, 27 Va. App. 426 (no requirement to make specific findings as to each statutory factor)
Landrum v. Chippenham & Johnston‑Willis Hosps., Inc., 282 Va. 346 (abuse of discretion occurs when court omits relevant factors, considers improper factors, or clearly errs in weighing)
Rowlee v. Rowlee, 211 Va. 689 (custody is not to be awarded as punishment)