COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Frank, Huff and Senior Judge Haley 

SUSAN ENGELBRECHT 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1467-13-2 PER CURIAM 

 MAY 27, 2014 

CLYDE DAVENPORT 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF KING WILLIAM COUNTY 

Thomas B. Hoover, Judge 

 (Susan Lesley Engelbrecht, pro se, on brief). 

 (Clyde C. Davenport, pro se, on brief). 

 (J. Terry Osborne, on brief), Guardian ad litem for the minor 

children. 

 Susan Engelbrecht (mother) appeals from the circuit court’s July 11, 2013 order denying her 

request for custody of, and visitation with, the parties’ two minor children. On appeal, mother lists 

the following as her assignments of error: 

[1.] The final court order states: the mother made false allegations 

against the father. 

[2.] The final order states: the mother’s request is frivolous. 

[3.] The final court order states that the father’s felony child abuse 

conviction, the mother’s parenting class certificate and [the 

child’s] letter (exhibits A, B, and C) are not sufficient Material 

Change of Circumstance. 

[4.] The final court order requires the mother to pay the Guardian 

ad litem although she can’t afford to pay her. 

[5.] The trial court erred by including false statements in the final 

order and not taking the indigency requirements into consideration. 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 

UNPUBLISHED 
 - 2 - 

Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude this appeal is without 

merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court.1 See Rule 5A:27. 

BACKGROUND 

 The King William County Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court denied 

mother’s motion seeking to change custody and visitation with the parties’ two minor children, 

alleging a material change in circumstances. Mother appealed the case to the circuit court. The 

circuit court heard evidence in several hearings and by order dated July 11, 2013, determined it 

was “in the best interest of both children to have no contact with” mother. The circuit court also 

prohibited mother from contacting or attempting to contact the children in any way, prohibited 

mother from going near the property of any King William County school or father’s residence, 

and required her to pay the entirety of the guardian ad litem’s fee. The trial court denied 

mother’s request for custody and visitation and granted father sole legal and physical custody of 

the children. The circuit court interviewed the teenaged children in camera, found the children 

“to be of sufficient age, ability and intellectual functioning to express their desires,” and noted “it 

is the desire of each child to NOT have contact with the mother . . . .” Mother appeals from that 

order. 

ANALYSIS 

 “We have many times pointed out that on appeal the 

judgment of the lower court is presumed to be correct and the 

burden is on the appellant to present to us a sufficient record from 

which we can determine whether the lower court has erred in the 

respect complained of. If the appellant fails to do this, the 

judgment will be affirmed.” 

Smith v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 630, 635, 432 S.E.2d 2, 6 (1993) (quoting Justis v. 

Young, 202 Va. 631, 632, 119 S.E.2d 255, 256-57 (1961)). 

 1

 We also deny mother’s motion for an expedited hearing and the guardian ad litem’s 

motions to dismiss and to deny the appeal. 
 - 3 - 

“When the appellant fails to ensure that the record contains transcripts or a written 

statement of facts necessary to permit resolution of appellate issues, any assignments of error 

affected by such omission shall not be considered.” Rule 5A:8(b)(4)(ii). 

Here, a transcript or a written statement of facts complying with Rule 5A:8(c) is 

indispensable to determining whether the trial court erred in making the custody and visitation 

determinations. See Anderson v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 506, 508-09, 413 S.E.2d 75, 

76-77 (1992); Turner v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 96, 99-100, 341 S.E.2d 400, 402 (1986). 

The record contains no transcripts or written statement of facts of the court proceedings in this 

case. 

 Mother had the responsibility to provide a complete record to the appellate court. 

Twardy v. Twardy, 14 Va. App. 651, 658, 419 S.E.2d 848, 852 (1992) (en banc). This Court 

“will not search the record for errors in order to interpret the appellant’s contention and correct 

deficiencies in a brief.” Buchanan v. Buchanan, 14 Va. App. 53, 56, 415 S.E.2d 237, 239 

(1992). Nor is it this Court’s “function to comb through the record . . . in order to ferret-out 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). “Even 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). 

 Furthermore, the appendix filed by mother is deficient. 

 The appendix must include “any testimony and other 

incidents of the case germane to the [assignments of error],” 

Rule 5A:25(c)(3), and “exhibits necessary for an understanding of 

the case that can reasonably be reproduced,” Rule 5A:25(c)(6). 

“The appendix is a tool vital to the function of the appellate 

process in Virginia. . . . By requiring the inclusion of all parts of 

the record germane to the issues, the Rules promote the cause of 

plenary justice.” Thrasher v. Burlage, 219 Va. 1007, 1009-10, 254 

S.E.2d 64, 66 (1979) (per curiam). Thus, the filing of an appendix 
 - 4 - 

that complies with the Rules, is “essential to an informed collegiate 

decision.” Id. 

Patterson v. City of Richmond, 39 Va. App. 706, 717, 576 S.E.2d 759, 764-65 (2003). 

 Mother failed to provide us with an adequate appendix to enable us to address her 

assignments of error. Because this case does not contain an appendix that includes parts of the 

record essential to the resolution of the issues before us, we affirm the judgment of the trial 

court. 

 Additionally, mother’s amended opening brief fails to comply with the rules of this 

Court. Upon receiving mother’s opening brief, this Court instructed mother that her brief failed 

to comply with Rules 5A:4(b), 5A:4(d), 5A:20(c), 5A:20(d), 5A:20(e), and 5A:20(h), and 

instructed her to submit a replacement opening brief. Mother’s amended brief did not correct all 

of the deficiencies in the original opening brief. 

 Rule 5A:20(c) requires “[a] statement of the assignments of error with a clear and exact 

reference to the page(s) of the transcript, written statement, record, or appendix where each 

assignment of error was preserved in the trial court.” Rule 5A:20(d) requires a “clear and 

concise statement of the facts that relate to the assignments of error, with references to the pages 

of the transcript, written statement, record, or appendix.” 

 In her replacement opening brief, mother presents a limited narrative of the evidence 

viewed in the light most favorable to her contentions and cites no authority or precedent 

supporting the issues she raises on appeal. Under our standard of review, we view the evidence 

in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, here husband. White v. White, 56 Va. App. 

214, 216, 692 S.E.2d 289, 290 (2010). Mother failed to provide any reference where each 

assignment of error was preserved in the trial court. See Rule 5A:20(c). 

 Rule 5A:20(e) requires that an appellant’s opening brief to this Court contain “[t]he 

standard of review and the argument (including principles of law and authorities) relating to each 
 - 5 - 

assignment of error.” Mere unsupported assertions of error “do not merit appellate 

consideration.” Buchanan, 14 Va. App. at 56, 415 S.E.2d at 239. Appellant’s brief does not 

comply with Rule 5A:20(e); it fails to include sufficient principles of law or any citation to legal 

authorities in support of the issues. A pro se litigant appearing “is no less bound by the rules of 

procedure and substantive law than a defendant represented by counsel.” Townes v. 

Commonwealth, 234 Va. 307, 319, 362 S.E.2d 650, 657 (1987). 

 We find that mother’s failure to comply with the provisions of Rule 5A:20 is significant, 

so we will not consider her arguments. See Jay v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 510, 520, 659 S.E.2d 

311, 317 (2008). 

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we summarily affirm without comment on the 

merits of the errors assigned on appeal. See Rule 5A:27. 

Affirmed.