Thomas Richard Ward v. Kimberlyn Maravet Baig-Ward, 0708174

Thomas Ward and Kimberlyn Baig-Ward married in 2010 and have two minor children; wife filed for a protective order after several incidents in late 2016.
October 25, 2016: wife observed husband pulling their older child by his hoodie; child was gasping and crying.
December 19, 2016: husband blocked bathroom door, pushed wife, grabbed and twisted her wrist as she tried to leave; later chased wife to a neighbor’s house, banged on a window while children inside were crying and cowering.
December 21, 2016: husband threatened consequences if wife and children went on a preplanned trip; wife left with children to Texas and then filed for protection.
JDR court issued a one-year protective order (temporary custody to wife, supervised visitation to husband); on de novo review the circuit court entered a two-year protective order, awarded temporary custody to wife, ordered supervised/Skype visitation for husband, and granted wife exclusive possession of the marital residence.

Issue	Baig-Ward's Argument	Ward's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supported a protective order for family abuse	Testimony showed physical acts, threats, and that wife and children were put in fear	Denied physical abuse; characterized touching as instinctive or defensive and challenged credibility	Court affirmed: credited wife’s testimony; evidence supports family abuse finding and protective order
Whether protective order should cover the children and include custody/visitation limits	Protective order statutes permit protection and temporary custody/visitation restrictions for family/household members	Argued trial court failed to consider child-custody statute factors and erred in awarding custody/limited visitation	Court declined to consider these claims on appeal for preservation reasons and held trial court had authority under protective order statute to protect children
Whether two-year duration was excessive	Two years was necessary for protection	Two years unnecessary given pending divorce	Court affirmed: duration within statutory maximum and not an abuse of discretion
Whether trial court erred in awarding exclusive possession of the residence (husband sole owner)	Exclusive possession is proper to protect petitioner	Challenged because husband is sole owner and prenuptial agreement preserved his title; order left him homeless	Court affirmed: trial court has discretion to award exclusive use/possession; such award does not affect title

Goodwin v. Commonwealth, 23 Va. App. 475, 477 S.E.2d 781 (1996) (statutory authority for protective orders)
Congdon v. Congdon, 40 Va. App. 255, 578 S.E.2d 833 (2003) (view evidence in light most favorable to prevailing party on appeal)
Brandau v. Brandau, 52 Va. App. 632, 666 S.E.2d 532 (2008) (discard conflicting appellant evidence when favoring appellee)
Street v. Street, 25 Va. App. 380, 488 S.E.2d 665 (1997) (finder of fact determines witness credibility and weight of testimony)
Carroll v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 641, 701 S.E.2d 414 (2010) (assignments of error must point to trial error with reasonable certainty)
Buchanan v. Buchanan, 14 Va. App. 53, 415 S.E.2d 237 (1992) (appellate court will not search record to find errors for appellant)
Fitzgerald v. Bass, 6 Va. App. 38, 366 S.E.2d 615 (1988) (appellate court not required to comb the record to develop appellant’s arguments)
Redman v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 215, 487 S.E.2d 269 (1997) (ends-of-justice exception requires affirmative showing of a miscarriage of justice)