COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Bumgardner 

TERESA J. CHITTUM 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 2149-97-3 PER CURIAM 

 MARCH 24, 1998 

GARY L. CHITTUM 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY 

George E. Honts, III, Judge 

 (M. Teresa Harris, on brief), for appellant. 

Appellant submitting on brief. 

 (H. David Natkin, on brief), for appellee. 

Appellee submitting on brief. 

 Teresa Chittum (mother) appeals the decision of the circuit 

court denying her motion for a change in custody. Mother 

contends that the trial court erred by (1) granting the motion to 

strike of Gary Chittum (father); (2) failing to grant her request 

for a change in custody; and (3) failing to consider the 

preference of the parties' minor children. We disagree and 

affirm the decision of the trial court. 

Motion to Strike

 "No ruling of the trial court . . . will be considered as a 

basis for reversal unless the objection was stated together with 

the grounds therefor at the time of the ruling, except for good 

cause shown or to enable the Court of Appeals to attain the ends 

of justice." Rule 5A:18. 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
 2 

 On appeal, mother argues that the trial court erred when it 

granted father's motion to strike. By order entered December 4, 

1996, the trial court granted the motion and found that mother 

"has not shown evidence of a sufficient change of circumstances 

to justify a change of custody." The trial court modified 

mother's visitation schedule, and ordered home studies on both 

parents. 

 Mother endorsed the decree "Seen." The record contains no 

indication that mother presented or preserved any objections to 

the December 1996 order. Accordingly, Rule 5A:18 bars our 

consideration of this question on appeal. Moreover, the record 

does not reflect any reason to invoke the good cause or ends of 

justice exceptions to Rule 5A:18. 

Change in Custody

 In its order entered August 13, 1997, the trial court denied 

mother's request for a change of custody. Mother endorsed the 

decree "Seen." No objections or exceptions to the court's ruling 

were attached to the final order. The written statement of facts 

does not indicate what, if any, objections mother raised at the 

evidentiary hearing. 

 Our review of this issue is barred by Rule 5A:18. The Court 

of Appeals will not consider an argument on appeal which was not 

presented to the trial court. "The purpose of Rule 5A:18 is to 

'afford[] "the trial court an opportunity to rule intelligently 

on the issues presented, thus avoiding unnecessary appeals and 
 3 

reversals."'" Newsome v. Newsome, 18 Va. App. 22, 24-25, 441 

S.E.2d 346, 347 (1994) (citations omitted). 

 Accordingly, Rule 5A:18 bars our consideration of this 

question on appeal. Moreover, the record does not reflect any 

reason to invoke the good cause or ends of justice exceptions to 

Rule 5A:18. 

Failure to Consider Children's Preference

 The record contains no indication mother raised this issue 

before the trial court. Therefore, we do not consider this 

argument on appeal. See Rule 5A:18. 

 Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is affirmed. 

Affirmed.