Mother awarded sole legal custody after lengthy dispute

Where the parties have been litigating custody and visitation matters regarding their minor child since 2009, the court awards mother sole legal custody. The court further orders that mother is “the keyholder and tiebreaker as to any visitation dispute” and must document her efforts to resolve the dispute.

Long-running litigation

“The subject of the litigation is the minor child of the parties, David C. Bailey, age 14[.] … This litigation stems from a divorce decree originally entered on August 12, 2009. The parties began litigating custody and visitation when the child was approximately 1 year, 9 months old. The child is now 14, and this matter constitutes the 6th reinstated custody case involving this child in this court.

“Thus, there has been some type of pending custody litigation for what has essentially been the entirety of the child’s life.

“Prior custody orders in this child’s case have awarded the parties joint legal custody, but the primary physical custodial status has changed by subsequent court orders several times, to include temporary orders pending further litigation. Thus, both the mother and father have, at different times, been awarded primary physical custody of David.

“There have also been collateral custodial disputes regarding the child originating in other courts and pursuant to other provisions of law.

“The most recent custody order evolving from, and arising out of the original divorce action, is this court’s order dated June 6, 2014. This prior order, inter alia, continued the status of joint legal custody, but, after finding a material change of circumstances, awarded primary physical custody to the father. From this particular order, the parties have moved for modification.

“The instant motions seek different relief, with the father seeking sole legal custody, while the mother seeks a continuation of joint legal custody with the appointment of a ‘parenting coordinator,’ and a physical custody arrangement that is essentially a shared 50/50 … allocation of parenting time.”

Ruling

“The court finds that the father’s actions toward the mother, as shown by the evidence herein, have been malicious. Moreover, the court finds the father’s actions have been contrived with a goal of ‘winning’ a fight against the mother rather than serving the interests of the child.

“The shocking nature of father’s actions in videotaping the minor child, offering the child’s testimony to the mother’s subsequent husband, and a host of other sharp tactics and hostilities, require the court to award sole legal custody to the mother in order to cease the damage actually inflicted upon the child, as well as to prevent future damage going forward.

“In short, the child may no longer serve as a mechanism or asset in the father’s apparent war against the mother. The mother, the court finds according to the evidence, is in the best position to serve the interests of the child.”

Bailey v. Sarina, Case No. CL 50712-06, May 6, 2021, Loudoun County Cir. Ct. (Fisher). William Buffaloe, Jason Yan, Elizabeth Ross, Jennifer Guida, Robert M. Vernail for the parties. VLW 021-8-073, 13 pp.