A grandmother’s general objection to a primary physical custody award of her minor daughter’s infant to the proposed adoptive mother was not sufficient to preserve other issues the grandmother seeks to raise on appeal, according to the Court of Appeals.
Grandmother argues that she objected to the entire order, and her objection was that she did not want the proposed adoptive mother to have custody of the infant. Grandmother, though, does not merely contest custody arrangements. On appeal, she contests specific rulings, such as whether the court erred in finding that mother voluntarily relinquished the infant and whether the court erred in finding the mother to be immature. Therefore, the endorsement of “seen and objected to” was not sufficient to preserve her questions for appeal.
Further, there was no miscarriage of justice in this case and the ends of justice exception does not apply.
We hold that all of grandmother’s issues on appeal are procedurally defaulted under Rule 5A:18.
Jones v. Jones (Per Curiam) No. 2596-07-2, July 29, 2008; King and Queen County Cir.Ct. (Hoover) V. Eileen Long for appellant; Matthew R. Kite for appellee. VLW 008-7-355(UP), 4 pp.