William R. Winters v. Cleome J. Winters
0060212
| Va. Ct. App. | Oct 26, 2021Background
- Parents divorced; three children. J&DR court (May 8, 2019) awarded mother sole legal and primary physical custody; father appealed de novo to the circuit court.
- Circuit court ordered an independent psychological evaluation by Dr. Michele Nelson and directed the evaluation report be sealed and disclosed only to specified parties or by court order.
- Father (pro se) gave the sealed report to his wife (stepmother), who was not a party; she sent a threatening letter to Dr. Nelson claiming ethical violations after reading the sealed report.
- Mother moved for a show-cause contempt hearing; the circuit court found father violated the sealing order, denied his motion to recuse Dr. Nelson (finding the recusal motion filed for improper purpose), and sanctioned father by dismissing his de novo appeal and awarding mother attorney’s fees.
- Father appealed. The Court of Appeals held the circuit court had authority to sanction but that dismissal was an unduly severe, not narrowly tailored sanction in these circumstances; it vacated the dismissal, affirmed other rulings, and remanded for reconsideration of an appropriate sanction.
Issues
| Issue | Father's Argument | Mother's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether circuit court had authority to sanction and dismiss the de novo appeal for dissemination of a sealed psychological report | Court lacked authority to impose sanction or specifically to dismiss the appeal | Court had statutory and inherent authority to punish contempt for willful disobedience of custody-related orders | Court had authority to sanction, but dismissal was an abuse of discretion here because it was unduly severe and not narrowly tailored; remanded to reconsider sanctions |
| Whether stepmother should have been treated as father’s expert (permitting her access to sealed report) | Stepmother was a consulting/testifying expert, so disclosure of report to her was authorized | Stepmother’s hospice-nursing background was irrelevant to custody issues; she was not a qualified expert | Trial court did not abuse discretion in refusing to qualify stepmother as an expert |
| Whether circuit court failed to consider father’s motion to recuse the evaluator Dr. Nelson | Court ignored or failed to consider recusal motion alleging bias/conflict | Court held a hearing, considered the motion, and found it filed for improper purposes | Court considered the motion; denial was proper and not erroneous |
| Whether court abused discretion in awarding mother attorney’s fees | Fees were inequitable and should have been reduced | Fees were appropriate under the court’s equitable discretion and supported by case law | Father failed to adequately brief the issue on appeal; award of fees affirmed (issue deemed waived in part) |
Key Cases Cited
- Switzer v. Switzer, 273 Va. 326 (discusses abuse-of-discretion standard for sanctions)
- Commonwealth ex rel. Graham v. Bazemore, 32 Va. App. 451 (show-cause hearing: moving party must prove noncompliance with court order)
- Lawlor v. Commonwealth, 285 Va. 187 (standards for when a court abuses its discretion)
- Combs v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 256 Va. 490 (requirements for qualifying an expert witness)
- Patrick v. Byerley, 228 Va. 691 (child welfare as primary consideration; limited exception where a parent is unfit)
- Chawla v. BurgerBusters, Inc., 499 S.E.2d 829 (factors for assessing reasonableness of attorney’s fees)
- Greyer v. Ill. Dep’t of Corr., 933 F.3d 871 (warning that dismissal is a "draconian" sanction and must be carefully evaluated)