COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Al ston, O’Brien and Se nior Judge Clements Argued at Alexandria, Virginia

RENEE ANN BEATTY MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 1945-16-4 JUDGE JEAN HARRISON CLEMENTS APRIL 18, 2017 HARRY DAVIS BEATTY

FROM THE CIRCUIT COUR T OF FAIRFAX COUNTY John M. Tran, Judge Renee Ann Beatty, pro se

. Kelly M. Juhl (The Susan Hicks Group PC, on brief), for appel lee.

Appellant (mother) and appe llee (father) divorced in 2014. Mo ther and father shared joint legal custody of their two daughters, A.B., born in 2004, and L.B., born in 2006, but mother had primary physical custody. In 2016, mother and father filed separate motions to modify custody and visitation. Following a two-day hearing, the trial court awarded sole legal and primary physical custody to father . Mother appeals that ruling , asserting the court abused its discretion in disregarding the c hildren’s stated preference to live with her and in finding she had

alienated the children from thei r father. We affirm the trial court’s decision because mother did not provide a proper appendix. As appellant, mother was responsible for providing a complete record to this Court. Twardy v. Twardy, 14 Va. App. 651, 658, 419 S.E.2d 848, 852 (19 92) ( en banc ). Rule 5A:25 requires appellant to file an a ppendix that “should generally c ontain everything relevant” to the assignments of error. Reid v. Commonwealth, 57 Va. App. 42, 49 , 698 S.E.2d 269, 272 (2010).

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this op inion is not designated fo r publication.UNPUBLISHED- 2 - Although mother designated por tions of the 2016 custody hearing transcript to be included in the appendix, the only documents she attached to her opening brief, in lieu of a separate appendix, were the September 2016 order be ing appealed, the 2013 marital settlement agreement, and documents relating to the April 2016 criminal complaint and pre liminary protective order she obtained against father. These materials do not adequately add ress mother’s claim that the trial court’s ruling was an abuse of discretion. Furthermore, mother did not include any of the items father designated for the appendix. This Court may “consider other parts of the record,” id. (quot ing Rule 5A:25(h)), but is not required to do so, and in cases where the appendix was inad equate, the Court has found an appellant’s argument was defa ulted. In Patterson v. City of Ri chmond, 39 Va. App. 706, 717, 576 S.E.2d 759, 764-65 (2003), we stated: The appendix must include “a ny testimony and other incidents of the case germane to the questions presented,” Rule 5A:25(c)(3), and “exhibits necessary for a n understanding of the case that c an reasonably be reproduced,” Rule 5A :25(c)(6). “The appendix is a tool vital to the function of the appellate proce ss in Virginia

. . . . By requiring the inclusion of a ll parts of the record germane t o the issues, the Rules promote the cause of plenary justice.” Thras her v. Burlage, 219 Va. 1007, 1009-10, 254 S.E.2d 64, 66 (1979) (pe r curiam). Thus, the filing of a n appendix that complies with th e Rules, is “essential to an inf ormed collegiate decision.” Id. Because the appendix filed in this case does not contain parts of the record that are essential to the resolution of the issue be fore us, we will not decide the issue. Additionally, the judgment of t he lower court is presumed on a ppeal to be correct. See Caprino v. Commonwealth, 53 Va. App. 181, 184, 670 S.E.2d 36, 3 7-38 (2008); Smith v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 630, 635, 432 S.E.2d 2, 6 (1993). Th us, [a]n appellant who seeks the re versal of a decree on the ground that it is contrary to the law and the evidence has the primary responsibility of presenting to thi s [C]ourt, as a part of the printed record, the evidence introduce d in the lower court, or so much thereof as is necessary and s ufficient for us to give full consideration to the a ssignment of error.- 3 - Lawrence v. Nelson, 200 Va. 597, 598-99, 106 S.E.2d 618, 620 (1 959). It is not this Court’s “function to comb through the rec ord . . . in order to ferret-o ut for ourselves the validity of [appellant’s] claims.” Fitzgerald v. Bass, 6 Va. App. 38, 56 n .7, 366 S.E.2d 615, 625 n.7 (1988) ( en banc ). Mother’s status as a pro se litigant does not excuse her failure to comply with the applicable appellate rules, as “[e]ven pro se litigants must comply with the rules of court.” Francis v. Francis, 30 Va. App. 584, 591, 518 S.E.2d 842, 846 ( 1999). Because the appendix in

this case is insufficient to d ecide the issue presented, we aff irm the judgment of the trial court. Appellee asks this Court to awa rd him attorney’s fees and cost s incurred on appeal. See O’Loughlin v. O’Loughlin, 23 Va. App. 690, 695, 479 S.E.2d 98, 100 (1996). Having

considered the record i n this case, we dec line to award attorne y’s fees and costs in this instance.

Affirmed.