COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judges Willis and Bumgardner 

Argued at Salem, Virginia 

JUDY ANN KISLING 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 0169-98-3 JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR. 

 DECEMBER 22, 1998 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF WAYNESBORO 

Humes J. Franklin, Jr., Judge 

 William E. Bobbitt, Jr., Public Defender, for 

appellant. 

 Donald E. Jeffrey, III, Assistant Attorney 

General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General; 

Ruth A. Morken, Assistant Attorney General, 

on brief), for appellee. 

 On appeal from her conviction of taking liberties with a 

child, in violation of Code § 18.2-370.1, Judy Ann Kisling 

contends that the evidence is insufficient to prove that she had 

a custodial or supervisory relationship with the victim as 

required by the statute. We reverse the judgment of the trial 

court. 

 I. BACKGROUND

 Shannon Nicole Breeden, aged seventeen years, was evicted 

from her apartment after the landlord learned that Shannon's 

mother was in prison and she was living in the apartment 

unsupervised. Kisling invited Shannon to stay in her home 

temporarily. Shannon accepted this invitation and lived with 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code § 17-116.010, 

this opinion is not designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

Kisling from September 1, 1997 to October 29, 1997. 

 Shannon had no means of supporting herself. Kisling 

provided her food and clothing during her stay. Although Kisling 

attempted to lay down guidelines for Shannon's occupancy of the 

home, she had no personal authority to direct or counsel Shannon. 

 Shannon came and went as she pleased. She decided on her own to 

leave the home after she and Kisling disagreed about whether 

Shannon's boyfriend could visit. Shannon was no more than a 

guest in Kisling's home. 

 After moving out of Kisling's home, Shannon told April Berry 

and others that while she was staying at Kisling's home, Kisling 

had asked her to engage in sexual activity with various men in 

exchange for crack cocaine. Shannon told a police investigator 

that this had occurred at least four times. Kisling was 

convicted of taking indecent liberties with a child over whom she 

maintained a custodial or supervisory relationship, in violation 

of Code § 18.2-370.1. 

 Code § 18.2-370.1 states, in relevant part, that 

 [a]ny person eighteen years of age or older 

who maintains a custodial or supervisory 

relationship over a child under the age of 

eighteen, including but not limited to the 

parent, step-parent, grandparent, 

step-grandparent, or who stands in loco 

parentis with respect to such child and is 

not legally married to such child, and who, 

with lascivious intent, knowingly and 

intentionally . . . proposes to the child 

that the child engage in sexual intercourse, 

sodomy, or fondling of sexual or genital 
- 3 - 

 parts with another person . . . shall be 

guilty of a Class 6 felony. 

Code § 18.2-370.1. 

 Kisling contends that the evidence failed to prove that 

there existed a custodial or supervisory relationship between her 

and Shannon. We agree. 

 For a custodial or supervisory relationship to exist, the 

custodian or supervisor must hold some form of legal or actual 

authority over the child. Kisling maintained no such authority 

over Shannon. Although Shannon was a minor, Kisling was herself 

but twenty-five years old. The two young women were friends. 

Their relationship was no more than that of hostess and guest. 

Kisling had no authority to punish Shannon, no authority to 

impose upon her personal rules or regulations, no authority to 

control her personal behavior. Shannon did not look to Kisling 

for supervision. Kisling's sole contribution to Shannon was the 

gratuitous provision of food and shelter. Because Kisling lacked 

custody or supervision of Shannon, we reverse the judgment of the 

trial court and dismiss Kisling's conviction. 

 The judgment of the trial court is reversed. 

 Reversed.