Parent and child: Mother appeals contempt, custody and fees order

Where the record supported the circuit court’s contempt, custody and attorney’s fees award, it was affirmed.

Background                                       

These two appeals arise from protracted, multi-state litigation between Eden Stuart and Wayne Campbell regarding custody and visitation of their child, O.C.

JDR jurisdiction

The circuit court held that mother had attempted to appeal the JDR court’s nonfinal, interlocutory order denying her motion to transfer venue. That ruling was not appealed or challenged by either party, so it is the law of the case. Given that mother’s notice of appeal challenged an unappealable interlocutory order, her notice of appeal did not confer on the circuit court subject matter of the controversy, meaning that the JDR court never lost jurisdiction to adjudicate the case.

Thus the JDR court had jurisdiction to continue litigating the case and enter the March 16, 2021, order that mother was later held in contempt for violating. Consequently, the circuit court also had derivative jurisdiction to hear mother’s second appeal of the orders holding her in contempt, awarding father sole legal and primary physical custody and ordering mother to pay attorney’s fees.

Contempt

The record demonstrates that the parties entered a temporary custody order for the summer of 2021 so that mother could pursue a career in Maine. That agreement established “week-on, week-off” visitation in Virginia and Maine and was incorporated into the JDR court’s March 16, 2021, order. Moreover, the agreement explicitly provided that if the parties could not reach a permanent agreement by the end of the summer, the prior custody orders would resume effect, which contained an alternating custody schedule, and O.C. would be returned to Virginia, where he would attend school.

Nevertheless, on May 15, 2021, mother did not return O.C. to Virginia as she was plainly obliged to do under the above agreement and, instead, insisted that the agreement and JDR court order was void because father had discussed possibly moving to Georgia or Texas. Thus, mother believed that she did not have to return O.C. and could instead pursue litigation in Maine, which she did.

Yet, as the circuit court found, mother’s position finds no support in the temporary agreement, and her rationale for not returning O.C. was “unjustifiable.” The temporary agreement provided that its terms were contingent on father “continuing to reside in Northern Virginia,” which he did. Moreover, the agreement provided that if father moved, or filed notice of an intent to move, then the provisions limiting jurisdiction to Virginia would be nullified.

Mother maintains that the circuit court erred by finding her in contempt because it failed to consider the Maine protective orders, which awarded her sole emergency custody in Maine. She maintains that the circuit court had to give those orders, which were registered in Virginia, “full faith and credit” and that the orders provided her with a reasonable basis for not returning O.C. to father in Virginia.

The first protective order (a temporary order that was not extended) was not entered until June 21, 2021, over a month after mother violated the JDR court’s March 16, 2021 order. Thus, neither that protective order nor the subsequent protective orders could provide a reasonable basis for mother to believe that she did not have to return O.C. to father on May 15, 2021, and the circuit court did not err by holding her in contempt for failing to do so.

Custody

Mother does not claim that the circuit court failed to consider each of the statutory factors. Rather, she argues that the circuit court abused its discretion by finding that “there was no persuasive evidence of family abuse.” She maintains that the circuit court “failed to consider a relevant factor” in reaching that conclusion—namely, “the findings from the protection from abuse orders from Maine” that father posed a “credible threat to” her “physical safety.” The record, however, belies mother’s argument and contains credible evidence supporting the circuit court’s conclusion.

Attorney’s fees

Mother asserts that father’s fee affidavit included fees that he incurred in the Maine litigation and that the court could not award those fees because he was not the prevailing party in Maine. The record demonstrates, however, that the circuit court did not award father attorney fees he incurred in Maine.

Affirmed, Record No. 0556-23-4. Reversed and Remanded, Record No. 0448-24-4.

Stuart v. Campbell, Record Nos. 0556-23-4, 0448-24-4, Aug. 5, 2025. CAV (unpublished opinion) (Frucci). From the Circuit Court of Loudoun County (Fleming Jr.). Thomas K. Plofchan, Jr. (Jacqueline A. Kramer; Westlake Legal Group, on briefs), for appellant. Brian M. Hirsch (Sharon F. Pederson; Hirsch & Ehlenberger, P.C., on briefs), for appellee. VLW 025-7-207. 31 pp.