COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Fr ank, Humphreys and Seni or Judge Bumgardner Argued at Salem, Virginia

TIMOTHY M. BARRETT MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 0753-10-3 J UDGE ROBERT J. HUMPHREYS JANUARY 25, 2011 VALERIE JILL RHUDY BARRETT

FROM THE CIRCUIT COUR T OF GRAYSON COUNTY Brett L. Geisler, Judge Timothy M. Barrett, pro se . Maria Timoney (Jonathon M. Venzie, Guardian ad litemfor the minor children; Southwest Virginia Legal Aid Society, on brief), for appellee.
Timothy M. Barrett (“father”) appeals a ru ling of the Circuit C ourt of Grayson County (“the circuit court”) relating to his mo tion to amend custody of his six children 1 with Valerie Jill Rhudy Barrett (“mother”). On appeal, father argues the following questions presented 2 : (I) Did the circuit court err in applying the “best interest s” test of Code § 20-124.3 when the uncontested evidence was that the mother was unfit; (II) did the circuit court vi olate the father’s fundamental,

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.

1 The six children will be refe rred to individually as “J.B.,” “A.B.,” “E.E.B.,” “E.G.B.,” “W.B.,” and “K.B.” With regard to J.B., the issues addressing his custody are moot as he reached the age of majority in March 2010. With regard to A.B., the father non-suited the custody petition as it dealt with A.B. during the custody proceed ings as father was awarded custody of A.B. Thus, this appeal encompasses only the issues of custody as they relate to E.E.B., E.G.B., W.B., and K.B.

2 This appeal is governed by Rule 5A:20(c) as worded prior to its revision effective July 1, 2010, changing the requirement for setting forth “questions presented” to “assignments of error.”- 2 - natural, and constitutional right s; (III) did the circuit court err in the way it received the testimony of the children; (IV) di d the circuit court err in basi ng its decision as to custody on background information and not on the contemporar y circumstances of the children and an application of the best interests of the child standard; (V) was the circuit court impermissibly biased against the father; (VI) did the circuit court utterly fail to consider the best interests of the children, (VII) did the circuit court fail to properly consider the st atutory factors in rendering its custody letter opinion; (VIII) did the circuit court fail to consider all the evidence; (IX) did the circuit court err in making a d ecision that lacked a foundation base d on the evidence and was, in fact, contrary to the evidence; (X) did the circuit c ourt err by failing to ad equately communicate the basis for its decision to th e parties as requiredby Code § 20-124.3; and (XI) did the circuit court lack jurisdiction to impos e transportation costs on the fath er? For the following reasons, we affirm. 3 I. Issues Procedurally Defaulted Rule 5A:18 provides, in pertinent part, that “[n]o ruling of the trial court . . . will be considered as a basis for reversal unless the ob jection was stated toge ther with the grounds therefor at the time of the ruling.” 4 Therefore, “in order to pres erve an issue for appeal, ‘an objection must be timely made and th e grounds stated with specificity.’” Kovalaske v. Commonwealth , 56 Va. App. 224, 229, 692 S.E.2d 641, 645 (2010) (quoting McDuffie v. Commonwealth , 49 Va. App. 170, 177, 638 S.E.2d 139, 142 (2006)). “To be timely, an

3 Father also filed with this Court a motion to strike the replacement brief of the appellee and motion to strike the appendix of the appellee. This Court denies said motions.

4 Effective July 1, 2010, Rule 5A:18 was revise d to state that “[n] o ruling of the trial court . . . will be considered as a basis for reve rsal unless an objection wa s stated with reasonable certainty at the time of the ruling . . . .” Because the proceedings below were completed prior to this revision taking effect, we will rely on the language of Rule 5A:18 that was then in effect. See Fails v. Va. State Bar , 265 Va. 3, 5 n.1, 574 S.E.2d 530, 531 n.1 (2003) (applying the Rule of Court in effect at the time of the proceedings below).- 3 - objection must be made when the occasion arises -- at the time the evidence is offered or the statement made.” Marlowe v. Commonwealth , 2 Va. App. 619, 621, 347 S.E.2d 167, 168 (1986) (citing Ingram v. Commonwealth , 1 Va. App. 335, 341, 338 S.E.2d 657, 660 (1986)). Put another way, “[t]o satisfy the rule, ‘an objection mu st be made . . . at a point in the proceeding when the trial court is in a positi on, not only to consider the asserted error, but also to rectify the effect of the asserted error.’” Scialdone v. Commonwealth , 279 Va. 422, 437, 689 S.E.2d 716, 724 (2010) (quoting Johnson v. Raviotta , 264 Va. 27, 33, 563 S.E.2d 727, 731 (2002)). “[T]he main purpose of the rule is to ensure the trial court can ‘consider the issue intelligently and take any corrective actions neces sary to avoid unnecessary appeals, reversals and mistrials.’” Kovalaske , 56 Va. App. at 230, 692 S.E.2d at 645 (quoting Martin v. Commonwealth , 13 Va. App. 524, 530, 414 S.E.2d 401, 404 (1992)). “‘In addition, a specific, contemporaneous objection gives th e opposing party the opportunity to meet the objection at that stage of the proceeding.’” West v. Commonwealth , 43 Va. App. 327, 337, 597 S.E.2d 274, 279 (2004) (quoting Weidman v. Babcock , 241 Va. 40, 44, 400 S.E.2d 164, 167 (1991)). Rule 5A:18 is violated when the record does not demonstrat e the circuit court had th e opportunity to rule on the objections and arguments made below. Lee v. Lee , 12 Va. App. 512, 515-17, 404 S.E.2d 736, 738-39 (1991) (en banc). “An appellate court must dispose of the case upon the record and cannot base its decision upon appellant’s petition or brief, or statements of counsel in ope n court. We may act only upon facts contained in the record.” Smith v. Commonwealth , 16 Va. App. 630, 635, 432 S.E.2d 2, 6 (1993). “[O]n 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.” Justis v. Young , 202 Va. 631, 632, 119 S.E.2d 255, 256-57 (1961). “In the absence [of a su fficient record], we will not consider the- 4 - point.” Jenkins v. Winchester Dep’t of Soc. Servs. , 12 Va. App. 1178, 1185, 409 S.E.2d 16, 20 (1991) (citation omitted). More sp ecifically, “[w]e cannot review the ruling of a lower court for error when the appellant does not bring within th e record on appeal the basis for that ruling or provide us with a record that adequately demonstrates that the court erred.” Prince Seating Corp. v. Rabideau , 275 Va. 468, 470-71, 659 S.E.2d 305, 307 (2008). Where we do not have the benefit of a transcript of the proceedings, we canconsider only that which is contained in the written statement signed by the trial judge. Jenkins , 12 Va. App. at 1185, 409 S.E.2d at 20. The record in this case consists of the ci rcuit court’s letter opini ons and final orders, a written statement of facts, the circuit court’s co rrections and/or additions to the statement of facts, and father’s amended objections to the tr ial court’s final order and incidents of trial (“amended objections”). In presenting his ques tions on brief, father cites to the amended objections for support that each question was properly preserved for appeal. However, in turning to the amended objections, we must first note the difference between objecti ons that are incidents of trial, which must be supported by evidence in the record as to their timeliness during trial, and those objections that are related to the final order and properly a ttached to the final order. As noted above, objections “must be made when the occasion aris es -- at the time the evidence is offered or the statement made.” Marlowe , 2 Va. App. at 621, 347 S.E.2d at 168 (citing Ingram , 1 Va. App. at 341, 338 S.E.2d at 660). In order for incidents of trial to be properly preserved, a written statement of facts mu st reflect that objections were made, and the grounds therefor stated, when the occasion aros e. The contemporaneous objection requirement of Rule 5A:18 is not satisfied when a party su mmarily includes his objections as part of the objections to a final order at a later date. With re gard to a final order, “counsel may, if he or she has previously failed to do so, include an objectio n and reasons therefor in the final order or at least tender such an orde r to the trial judge.” Lee , 12 Va. App. at 516, 404 S.E.2d at 737 (citing- 5 - Highway Comm’r v. Easley , 215 Va. 197, 207 S.E.2d 870 (1974)) (permitting counsel to amend the final order which reflected no objections, to properly state that the obj ections had been made during trial and the trial court had addressed them). The holding of Lee does not, however, imply that any and all objections are preserved merely by their incl usion in the final order. The record, in whatever form it takes, must affirmativ ely reflect that any objections were made at a point in time when the trial c ourt could properly act upon them. In this case, father attempts to include all of his objections, regardle ss of their timeliness, in the amended objections to the final order. He then cites to the amended objections for support that the issues were properly presented to the circuit court and preserved for appeal. However, the mere recitation of the objections in an attach ment to the final order without an indication of their timeliness and without the reasons advanced to the circ uit court in support of those objections does not properly preserve the issues . Neither the final orde r nor the statement of facts contains any mention of the arguments ma de by counsel, objections to the circuit court’s rulings or letter opinions, or th e judge’s rulings on those objecti ons. Further, the statement of facts merely recites that father filed motions to reconsider after the circuit court issued each letter opinion, but it does not provide what was included in each motion to reconsider. Because there is no evidence in the record that the questions pres ented II, III, V, and IX and their subparts were timely objected to in the circuit court with the specific grounds or reasons therefor and that the circuit court ruled on them, we do not c onsider the merits of them on appeal.
II. ANALYSIS “‘On appeal, the judgment of the trial court is presumed correct,’ Wymer v. Commonwealth , 12 Va. App. 294, 296, 403 S.E.2d 702, 704 (1991), and it is incumbent upon ‘the party alleging trial cour t error to show . . . that the judgment was erroneous.’” Carter v. Thornhill , 19 Va. App. 501, 509-10, 453 S.E.2d 295, 301 (1995) (quoting Steinberg v. Steinberg ,- 6 - 11 Va. App. 323, 326, 398 S.E.2d 507, 508 (1990)). This Court views th e facts, and all reasonable inferences from those facts, in the ligh t most favorable to the party prevailing below. Congdon v. Congdon , 40 Va. App. 255, 258, 578 S.E.2d 833, 835 (2003). A. Code § 20-124.3 “Best Interests” Test “In matters of custody, visitation, and relate d child care issues, the court’s paramount concern is always the best interests of the child.” Farley v. Farley , 9 Va. App. 326, 327-28, 387 S.E.2d 794, 795 (1990) (citing Eichelberger v. Eichelberger , 2 Va. App. 409, 412, 345 S.E.2d 10, 12 (1986)). “When a trial court has entered a fi nal custody and visitation order, it cannot be modified absent (i) a showing of changed circ umstances under Code § 20-108 and (ii) proof that the child’s best interests under Code § 20- 124.3 will be served by the modification.” Petry v. Petry , 41 Va. App. 782, 789, 589 S.E.2d 458, 462 (2003). “T he second prong . . . is clearly the most important part of the two-part test. It underscores the importance we place upon securing the best interests of children whose interests, in the final analysis, must be protected by the
courts.” Keel v. Keel , 225 Va. 606, 612, 303 S.E.2d 917, 921 (1983). “Whether a change in circumstances exists is a factual finding that will not be disturbed on appeal if the finding is s upported by credible evidence.” Ohlen v. Shively , 16 Va. App. 419, 423, 430 S.E.2d 559, 561 (1993). “‘Changed circumstan ces’ is a broad concept and incorporates a broad range of positive and negative developments in the lives of the children.” Parish v. Spaulding , 26 Va. App. 566, 573, 496 S.E.2d 91, 94 (1998) (citing Keel , 225 Va. at 611-12, 303 S.E.2d at 921), aff'd , 257 Va. 357, 513 S.E.2d 391 (1999). “A trial court’s determination of a child’s best interests ‘is reversible on appeal on ly for an abuse of thatdiscretion, and a trial court’s decision will not be set aside unless plainl y wrong or without evidence to support it.” Vissichio v. Vissichio , 27 Va. App. 240, 246, 498 S.E.2d 425, 428 (1998). Finally, it is the trial- 7 - court’s duty, when sitting as the finder of fact, to resolv e conflicts in the evidence. City of Bedford v. Zimmerman , 262 Va. 81, 86, 547 S.E.2d 211, 214 (2001). 1. Mother’s Alleged Unfitness Father contends that the circuit court erred in applying the “best inte rests” test of Code § 20-124.3 when the uncontested evidence was that th e mother was unfit. He specifically argues the circuit court is required to determine the “f itness” of the natural pa rents as a “threshold” matter before applying the factors set forth in Co de § 20-124.3. We disagree, and hold that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in its consideration of the custody factors in Code § 20-124.3. In Virginia, “‘the welfare of the infant is the primar y, paramount, and controlling consideration of the court in all controversies between parents over the custody of their minor children . All other matters are subordinate.” Keel , 225 Va. at 610, 303 S.E.2d at 920 (emphasis in original) (quoting Mullen v. Mullen , 188 Va. 259, 269, 49 S.E.2d 349, 354 (1948)). In determining the best interest of the child, the legi slature has set forth ten f actors that a court must consider in making its determination. Thus, a circuit court implicitly determines the relative fitness of the parents for custody purposes through its application of the “b est interests test” to the factors set forth in Code § 20-124.3. 5

5 The cases in which the fitne ss of the parent has been at issue without examining the statutory factors are those in wh ich the custody of a child is being determined between a natural parent and a third party, and are inapplicable to this case. Bails v. Sours , 231 Va. 96, 340 S.E.2d 824 (1965) (ordering custody to mi nor child’s stepmother over mo ther where special facts and circumstances overcame presumption in the parent’s favor); James v. James , 230 Va. 51, 334 S.E.2d 551 (1985) (awarding custody to parents over grandparents due to no facts showing unfitness or other extr aordinary reasons); Patrick v. Byerley , 228 Va. 691, 325 S.E.2d 99 (1985) (granting custody of child to stepmother wher e trial court found moth er unfit because she abandoned the child and it would be in the best interest of the child); Elder v. Evans , 16 Va. App. 60, 65, 427 S.E.2d 745, 748 (1993) (granting custody to father over a non-parent where there was no showing of father’s unfitnes s or an extraordinary reason).- 8 - As an initial matter, the record does not suppor t father’s bald assert ion that the evidence is uncontested that mother is unfit because she voluntarily relinquished custody of J.B. and she voluntarily relinquished and aba ndoned custody of A.B. Whether the mother voluntarily relinquished custody or abandoned custody are factua l findings that must be determined by the circuit court. The record in this case is devoid of any evidence that the circuit court ever made a finding that mother voluntarily relinquished or abandoned custody of either J.B. or A.B. In turning to the circuit court’s determina tion of child custody, th e circuit court did not abuse its discretion in applying the statutory factors. The issue of custody in this case is between natural parents, and thus the primary purpose of th e court is the best inte rest of the child. The circuit court in its November 4, 2009 letter opinion applied the st atutory factors before awarding custody of the four children to mother. In its le tter opinion, the circuit co urt noted that neither parent was ideal under the circumstances, but it “hadto choose one parent over the other in order to limit the exchange of the children to limit their stress.” Because the circuit court considered the statutory factors in reaching its determination of the childre n’s custody, it did not abuse its discretion. 2. Comparison Between the Parents Father next contends that the circuit court e rred because it “utterly failed” to consider the best interests of the children. Specifically, he argues, based on the Virginia Supreme Court’s analysis in Keel of what is meant by “best,” that the circu it court erred in (a) i gnoring its overall aim in deciding this case; (b ) failing to make a rational comparison between the parents to determine what is best for the children; (c) failing to make a rationalcomparison between the parents to determine what is best for the childre n; and (d) failing to make a rational comparison between the parents to determine what is best for the children. 225 Va. 606, 303 S.E.2d 917.- 9 - In Keel , the Supreme Court of Vi rginia stated that The overall aim of a [trial] court in a change of custody case must be to determine which home is best for the children. . . . “Best” to us is the home that will pr ovide the children the greatest opportunity to fulfill th eir potential as individuals and as members of society. To determine what is “best” for the children the court must engage in a comparative analysis. Such an analysis will permit the court to decide which pare nt is best qualified to provide the highest quality of care to th e children. . . . “Comparing the quality of care offered by two parents, the courts are guided by histories of past performan ce and prospects for future performance.” Id. at 613-14, 303 S.E.2d at 922 (quoting McCreery v. McCreery , 218 Va. 352, 355, 237 S.E.2d 167, 169 (1977)). However, a comparative analysis of the parents is encompassed in a trial court’s consideration of the best interest factors mandated by the le gislature, and is not a separate required enumeration by the trial court prior to or in addition to its determination of the best interest of the children. “[I]n determining the best interest of the child, the court must consider the factors enumerated in Code § 20-124.3.” Vissichio , 27 Va. App. at 246, 498 S.E.2d at 428. In addition, we again reiterate that “[i]n matters of custody, vi sitation, and related child care issues, the court’s paramount concern is al ways the best interests of the child.” Farley , 9 Va. App. at 327-28, 387 S.E.2d at 795. The Supreme Court’s statements in Keel are to be read in conjunction with the application of the statutory factor s and a trial court’s paramount concern. In its analysis, the circuit court included th e facts regarding both parents in light of the statutory factors, and it reached its conclusion by focusing on the best interests of the children rather than on a specific comparison between the pa rents. The comparison of the parents is to be subordinate to the primary focus of the welfare of the child. Thus, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it applied th e statutory factors in making its determination of change of custody rather than applying a pure rational comparison between the parents.- 10 - 3. Contemporary Circumstances Father also contends that the circuit court erre d in basing its decision as to custody on background information and not on the contemporar y circumstances of the children and an application of the best intere sts of the child standard. [W]here a different trial judge is called upon to consider the evidence in support of and in oppos ition to a subsequent custody petition, consideration of eviden ce which establishes background information and permits the tria l judge to unders tand the alleged change in circumstances is permissible. Such evidence, however, is not to be used to retry the issues resolved in the prior proceedings. Turner v. Turner , 3 Va. App. 31, 33, 348 S.E.2d 21, 22 (1986). In turning to the record, contrary to the assertion by father, the circuit court did not base its 2009 custody decision on background information. The circuit court agreed that it would limit the use of the background information to its de termination of whether a material change in circumstances had occurred since the 2006 order and that the background information would not affect the determination of whether a change in custody would be in the children’s best interest. While the circuit court made refe rence to the 2006 findings in its 2009 letter opinion, the circuit court merely noted that those findings were suppor ted in 2006, and concluded that they were still supported in 2009 because the facts were still the same or had not changed during the three years since the 2006 order. The circuit judge then addressed the best interests factors in light of the contemporary circumstances in reaching its determina tion of what was in the best interest of the children in 2009. Thus, the circuit court did no t err in reaching its custody decision as it was analyzed in light of the best interest of th e children based on contemporary circumstances.- 11 - 4. “Best Interest” Factors Father argues the circuit c ourt erred in properly consider ing the statutory factors in rendering its custody letter opinion. Specifically, he contends thatit erred because it failed to properly consider all the evidence as it failed to strictly cons ider all of the factors. A trial court abuses its discretion when it “fai ls to consider the st atutory factors required to be part of the decisionmaking process.” Congdon , 40 Va. App. at 262, 578 S.E.2d at 836 (citing Rowe v. Rowe , 24 Va. App. 123, 139, 480 S.E.2d 760, 767 (1997)). “In determining the best interests of the child, the court must consider the factor s enumerated in Code § 20-124.3,” Vissichio , 27 Va. App. at 246, 498 S.E.2d at 428, and it “mus t consider all the evidence and facts before it,” Venable v. Venable , 2 Va. App. 178, 186, 342 S.E.2d 646, 651 (1986) (citing Brown
v. Brown , 218 Va. 196, 199, 237 S.E.2d 89, 91 (1977)). Even so, we do not “retry the facts or substitute our view of the facts for those of the trial court.” Congdon , 40 Va. App. at 266, 578 S.E.2d at 838 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The evidence before the circuit court was a ddressed in an eight-pa ge letter opinion in which the judge stated, “I have considered the evidence presented at the several hearings, the pleadings, written agreements of counsel and th e previous rulings by Judge Campbell. I have also considered the factors set out in S ection 20-124.3 and do hereby make the following findings.” The circuit court then addressed the ten factors set forth in Code § 20-124.3, and included the facts regarding each. We have reviewed the evidence, and conclude that the circuit court was not plainly wrong a nd that its decision was supporte d by the evidence before it in considering the statutory factors. “If the decision of the trial c ourt is supported by the evidence, ‘we are not permitted to substitute our j udgment for that of the chancellor.’” Vissichio , 27 Va. App. at 252, 498 S.E.2d at 431 (quoting Stainback v. Stainback , 11 Va. App. 13, 23, 396 S.E.2d 686, 692 (1990)).- 12 - 5. Consideration of All the Evidence Father also contends that the circuit court erred because it failed to consider all the evidence when it (1) simply ignored all the evidence that did not fit with its a priori conclusion that the mother have custody; a nd (2) it often refused to make f actual findings at all despite conceding that the parties put on evidence that demands such a finding and finding the information worthy of noting in its letter opinion; thus iterred by not providing some steps in its thought process to show that it considered all the evidence. As noted above, “[i]n determin ing the best interests of the child, the court must consider the factors enumerated in Code § 20-124.3,” Vissichio , 27 Va. App. at 246, 498 S.E.2d at 428, and it “must consider all the evidence and facts before it,” Venable , 2 Va. App. at 186, 342 S.E.2d at 651 (citing Brown , 218 Va. at 199, 237 S.E.2d at 91). Even so, we do not “retry the facts or substitute our view of the facts for those of the trial court.” Congdon , 40 Va. App. at 266, 578 S.E.2d at 838 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In reaching its determination, the circuit court did not abuse it s discretion by ignoring evidence or by refusing to make factual findings. In its eight-page le tter opinion, the circuit court addressed facts regarding both parents and the children th at existed regardless of which parent the fact supported. To lis t just a few facts the circuit court addressed in favor of father, the circuit court noted that fath er’s living arrangement would be more than adequate for the children should he gain custody, that mother re lies on her parents and extended family to help raise the children, that mother still exhibited symptoms of depr ession, and that father would be engaged in the children’s homework and expose th em to his life experiences and travel and would seek counseling for th e children if needed. With regard to the testimony of the doctors , the circuit court not ed Dr. Schlichter’s testimony that father was no longer a danger to his children, but it found that based on its- 13 - opportunity to personally observe fa ther during the past three year s of countless hearings and his combative nature with mother and other counselors that he had a narcissistic personality disorder. With regard to the ot her doctors, father c ontends they all testified and favored father obtaining custody, yet the evidence in the record provides otherwise. Dr. Beres was questioned about her treatment of mother and the children during 2003-2006 and never stated that the children should be removed from the stress of mother’s home; Ms. Odom was not asked nor did she testify that father should have custody of the Barrett children; Dr. Ramsden recommended that A.B. be placed with father; and Dr. Schlic hter actually testifie d that “[i]t would be inappropriate for me to render a custody opini on not having conducted a custody evaluation, not having seen Ms. Barrett, to having talked with the children.” In looking at allthe evidence and facts before it, the circuit court determined that the best interest of the children was to continue custody with mother, and thus it did not abuse its discretion. Secondly, the circuit court did not refuse to make factual findings when stating the facts before it. The circuit court in its eight-page letter opinion included statements made by both father and mother that applied to one of the ten factors, and th en made a finding regarding that factor. Father contends that the inclusion of the statements of either father or mother was indicative of the circuit court’s refusal to make findings of facts based on those statements. However, the circuit court’s inclusion of those st atements further supports the conclusion that it addressed all the evidence regarding that specific issue before making its determination. For instance, father contends that the circuit co urt makes the following statement without making a finding as to whether it is true: “Mr. Barrettfeels that his ex-wife physically and mentally abuses the children, neglects their ev ery need, and is a total failure as a mother.” Yet, the circuit court included this statement in its analysis regarding the parents’ ab ility to cooperate and resolve disputes regarding matters affecting the children, in additi on to mother’s view of father,- 14 - before it concluded that they are unable to coop erate and resolve matters regarding the children. It was merely including evidence in the letter op inion noting the various views, and then reached a factual finding for that specific factor. The ci rcuit court did not fail to make factual findings, and thus did not abus e its discretion. 6. Communication of the Basis for Its Decision Father contends that the circuit court erred in failing to adequately communicate the basis for its decision to the partie s as required by Code § 20-124.3. Code § 20-124.3 requires the judge to “communicate to the partie s the basis of the decision either orally or in wr iting.” This Court has held th is requirement to mean that “Code § 20-124.3 requires the trial court to identify the fundamental, predominating reason or reasons underlying its decision. This level of specificity does not requir e the chancellor to address all aspects of the deci sion making process, as one would expect from comprehensive findings of fact and conclusions of law. Nor does [it] require the ch ancellor ‘to quantify or elaborate exactly what weight or consider ation it has given to each of the statutory factors.’” Kane v. Szymczak , 41 Va. App. 365, 373, 585 S.E.2d 349, 353 (2003). While comm unicating the “basis” of the decision does not rise to the le vel of providing comprehensive findings of fact and conclusions of law, it does mean that the trial court must provide more to the parties than boilerplate language or a perfunctory statement that th e statutory factors have been considered. “The trial court must provide a case-specific explanation (one that finds its contextual meaning from the evidence before the court) of the fundamental, predominating reason or reasons for the decision.” Kane , 41 Va. App. at 373, 585 S.E.2d at 353. The statute requires “an express communication to the parties of the basis for the decision.” Id. Lanzalotti v. Lanzalotti , 41 Va. App. 550, 555, 586 S.E.2d 881, 883 (2003). In this case, the circuit cour t clearly provided more than just the boilerplate language that the factors were considered. In the November 4, 2009 eight-page letter opinion, the circuit court stated “I have considered the evidence presente d at the several hearings , the pleadings, written arguments of counsel and the previous rulings by Judge Campbell. I have also considered the- 15 - factors set out in Section 20-124.3 and do hereby make the following findings.” Although the circuit court is not required to address each and every factor when it explains the basis of its decision, the circuit court in its letter opinion anal yzed each of the ten statutory factors, provided facts regarding each factor, and ma de findings with regard to each factor. The circuit court then concluded “I find that because the children are stable, performing well academically and have established roots in Grayson Count y, that continuing in the custody of their mother would be in their best interest.” In reaching this conclusion, the circ uit court noted that neither parent “can be seen as ideal parents, and “[a]s before, this cour t has to choose one parent over the other in order to limit the exchange of the children to limit their stress.” The circuit court clearly set forth its reasons underlying its decision, there was sufficient evidence to support the circuit court’s decision, and it adequately communicated the basis of its decision to the parties. Thus, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion. B. Transportation Costs Father contends that the circuit court l acked subject matter jurisdiction to impose transportation costs associ ated with visitation. Specifically, he argues that the case at bar was solely regarding child custody and not child suppor t, and thus the circu it court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to require father to pay for the transportation costs associated with visitation which is solely a child support matter. “[S]ubject matter jurisdiction, perhaps best unde rstood as the ‘potentia l’ jurisdiction of a court, is the authority granted to it by constituti on or statute over a specified class of cases or controversies . . . .” Ghameshlouy v. Commonwealth , 279 Va. 379, 388, 689 S.E.2d 698, 702 (2010) (citing Bd. of Supervisors v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals , 271 Va. 336, 343-44, 626 S.E.2d- 16 - 374 & n.2, (2006)). 6 In Virginia, jurisdiction over di vorce matters is statutorily based. Rogers v.
Damron , 23 Va. App. 708, 711, 479 S.E.2d 540, 541 (1997). “A court has ju risdiction over the subject matter if it has jurisdiction over the cause of action and of the relief sought.” Id. at 711-12, 479 S.E.2d at 542. “‘Fundamental rules of pleading provide that no court can base its judgment or decree upon a right which has not been pleaded and claimed.’” Fadness v. Fadness , 52 Va. App. 833, 843, 667 S.E.2d 857, 862 (2008) (quoting Boyd v. Boyd , 2 Va. App. 16, 18, 340 S.E.2d 578, 580 (1986)). “‘Pleadings are as esse ntial as proof, the one being un availing without the other. A decree can not be entered in th e absence of pleadings upon which to found the same, and if so entered it is void.’” Id. (quoting Potts v. Mathieson Alkali Works , 165 Va. 196, 207, 181 S.E. 521, 525 (1935)). The absence of a request for an adjudication of child support precludes a court from deciding the issue, as th e court does not obtain jurisdic tion over the subject matter. See Fadness , 52 Va. App. at 843, 667 S.E.2d at 862 (“In di vorce cases, ‘the absence of a specific request for an adjudication of spousal support [p recludes courts] from obt aining jurisdiction over that subject matter.’” (citing Reid v. Reid , 24 Va. App. 146, 150, 480 S.E.2d 771, 773 (1997))). Father contends that the portion of the fi nal order regarding th e responsibility for transportation of the children imposed upon him the costs of transportation related to visitation, which is solely a child support is sue pursuant to the deviation fact ors to child support provided in Code § 20-108.1(B)(2). However, the legislature’s inclusion of cost of visitation travel as a permitted factor in deviating from the general child support calculation does not mean that a

6 “It is well accepted that a question of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised sua sponte at any time. Likewise, it is well establishe d that the contemporaneous objection rule may not be invoked to bar considera tion of an appeal which attacks the jurisdiction of the circuit court.” Herrera v. Commonwealth , 24 Va. App. 490, 495, 483 S.E.2d 492, 495 (1997) (citations omitted).- 17 - determination of who is responsible for transpor tation as it relates to vi sitation is an imposition of costs and thus solely a child support matter. Therefore, we reject father’s argument. In the April 9, 2010 final order, the circuit court ordered that father have “visitation with the children every six weeks on the present six- week schedule from 5:00 p.m. on Fridays to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays with [father] picking up and dropping off the children in Grayson County with [father] being responsible for all transportati on.” The requirement that father is responsible for transportation merely apportions between th e individuals who has the responsibility of transportation of the children with respect to fa ther’s visitation, which was clearly within the authority of the circuit court. Eichelberger , 2 Va. App. at 412, 345 S.E.2d at 11 (“The authority vested in a trial court to deci de issues concerning the care, custody, support and maintenance of the minor children, the visitation ri ghts of the non-custodial parent, and the extent to which those rights and responsibilities shall be apportioned between estranged parents is a matter of judicial discretion which courts must exercise with the welfare of the children as the paramount concern.” (citing Allen v. Allen , 188 Va. 717, 721, 51 S.E.2d 207, 209 (1949); Code § 20-107.2)). “The court, in the exercise of it s sound discretion, may alte r or change custody or the terms of visitation when subsequent events render such action appropriate for the child’s welfare.” Id. at 412, 345 S.E.2d at 12 (citing Allen , 188 Va. at 721-22, 51 S.E.2d at 209-10; Code § 20-107.2). The circuit court did not lack subject matter ju risdiction to hold father responsible for all the transportation of the childre n during his visitation because it did not address child support but rather altered the terms of visitation.- 18 - III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion. Thus, we affirm its judgment. Affirmed.