COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis 

PIERRE JOLIGARD 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 2533-96-4 PER CURIAM 

 MAY 20, 1997 

CHRISTINA M. JOLIGARD 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY 

Paul F. Sheridan, Judge 

 (Pierre Joligard, pro se, on briefs). 

 (Leo R. Andrews, Jr., on brief), for 

appellee. 

 Pierre Joligard (father) appeals the decision of the circuit 

court modifying visitation and awarding attorney's fees to 

Christina Joligard (mother). Father contends that the trial 

court erred by (1) ordering custody and visitation without 

substantial, competent, and credible evidence; (2) reducing 

visitation without finding a material change in circumstances; 

(3) reducing visitation time without applying the proper 

evidentiary standard; and (4) awarding fees without proper 

notice. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we 

conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we 

summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. Rule 5A:27. 

 "In matters concerning custody and visitation, the welfare 

and best interests of the child are the 'primary, paramount, and 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

controlling consideration[s].'" Kogon v. Ulerick, 12 Va. App. 

595, 596, 405 S.E.2d 441, 442 (1991) (citation omitted). "The 

trial court, in the interest of the children's welfare, may 

modify visitation rights of a parent based upon a change in 

circumstances." Fariss v. Tsapel, 3 Va. App. 439, 442, 350 

S.E.2d 670, 672 (1986). See Keel v. Keel, 225 Va. 606, 611-12, 

303 S.E.2d 917, 921 (1983). The trial court is vested with broad 

discretion to make the decisions necessary to safeguard and 

promote the child's best interests, and its decision will not be 

set aside unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. 

See Farley v. Farley, 9 Va. App. 326, 327-28, 387 S.E.2d 794, 795 

(1990). 

 Father contends that there had been material changes in 

circumstances since the trial court's award of custody to mother 

in April 1995. Father alleged that the parties' minor child had 

been hospitalized for a drug overdose, that the overdose was 

caused by mother's faulty adherence to the view that the child 

needed to receive psychotropic drugs, and that the child had 

failed to thrive physically while in mother's care. Father also 

alleged that mother's relocation outside Virginia and her 

relationship with a new boyfriend were material changes. 

 The trial judge considered the evidence and heard the 

testimony of the parties. The trial judge was not persuaded by 

the father's arguments and rejected the father's petition. "The 

credibility of the witnesses is within the exclusive province of 
 3 

the finder of fact because it uniquely has the opportunity to see 

and hear the witnesses testify and weigh their credibility based 

upon their appearance, demeanor and manner of testifying." Estes 

v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 520, 524, 382 S.E.2d 491, 493 (1989). 

 The court found no change in circumstances warranting a change 

of custody from mother. We find no error in that decision. 

 Father also contends that the trial court erred in reducing 

his visitation without finding a material change of circumstances 

and that the decision was not supported by substantial, competent 

and credible evidence. 

 The court found that the parties were demonstrably unable to 

work together to reach decisions concerning the child's welfare 

and that one parent needed to be completely in charge. The trial 

court also found, and evidence in the record documents, that the 

substantial animosity between the parties and extended family 

made visitations disruptive. Furthermore, the court found that 

traveling from Pennsylvania to Virginia three weekends a month 

destabilized the place of primary custody and was not conducive 

to the child's best interests. The trial court's decision 

maintaining custody with mother and reducing father's visitation 

to two weekends a month was based upon the child's best interests 

and was not plainly wrong. 

 We reject father's claim that he lacked notice concerning 

the award of fees for the guardian ad litem. It is unclear 

whether father's objection relates to those costs previously 
 4 

awarded against father and excepted from discharge by the federal 

bankruptcy court or the additional costs charged at the 

completion of the hearing. Father was demonstrably aware that 

the parties bore responsibility for payment to the guardian ad

litem and these charges remained outstanding. We find no abuse 

of discretion in the trial court's award. 

 Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily 

affirmed. 

 Affirmed.