COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Koontz, Bray and Annunziata 

JOHN BROOKE, JR. 

v. Record No. 1874-94-3 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

TERRY YOUNG WILLIS JULY 18, 1995 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF 

THE CITY OF SALEM 

G. O. Clemens, Judge 

 (John Brooke, Jr., pro se, on brief). 

 No brief for appellee. 

 John Brooke (father) appeals the decision of the circuit 

court denying his request for sole custody of his daughter. Upon 

reviewing the record and father's opening brief, we conclude that 

this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm 

the decision of the trial court. Rule 5A:27.1

 

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

designated for publication. 

 1In father's Statement of the Questions Presented and in his 

Opening Brief, father seeks the following relief in addition to 

his request for sole custody of his absent daughter: 

 (1) that a felony warrant be issued for mother; 

 (2) that this Court order an entry into the 

"N.C.I.C."; 

 (3) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation be asked 

to assist father finding mother and the parties' child; 

 (4) that father and the parties' child each be awarded 

$100,000,000 in compensatory damages from the 

Commonwealth of Virginia, for physical and economic 

harm caused by mother and the Virginia courts and 

government; and 
 2 

 As the party seeking a change in custody, father had "'the 

burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, a material 

change in circumstances justifying a modification of the 

decree.'" Ohlen v. Shively, 16 Va. App. 419, 424, 430 S.E.559, 

561 (1993) (citation omitted). "However, even if there has been 

a change in circumstances, 'there can be no change in custody 

unless such change will be in the best interests of the 

children.'" Visikides v. Derr, 3 Va. App. 69, 71, 348 S.E.2d 40, 

41 (1986) (citation omitted). 

 In matters of custody . . . the court's 

paramount concern is always the best 

interests of the child. . . . In matters of a 

child's welfare, trial courts are vested with 

broad discretion in making the decisions 

necessary to guard and to foster a child's 

best interests. A trial court's 

determination of matters within its 

discretion is reversible on appeal only for 

an abuse of that discretion, and a trial 

court's decision will not be set aside unless 

plainly wrong or without evidence to support 

it. 

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

(1990). 

 The record indicates that the circuit court has an 

outstanding capias for the arrest of Terry Young Willis (mother), 

 

 (5) that this Court enter an order stating father 

"[h]as not violated any family law court order of any 

state and [h]as not committed any crime in regards to 

any family court order of any state." 

 

We either lack jurisdiction to entertain these issues, see Code 

§ 17-116.05, or, where we have jurisdiction, we cannot say that 

the trial court erred in denying the relief sought by father. 
 3 

who has custody of the parties' ten-year-old child. The trial 

court, however, denied father's request for an order of sole 

custody stating, in part: 

 I'm not so sure that I'm not . . . that I or 

another judge, whoever it might be, listening 

to the whole scenario of things would not 

feel like that [mother's] actions maybe do 

not make her a fit mother or a fit parent. 

On the other hand, even if that were the 

situation, I'm not sure that you would be 

given sole custody. This child has not lived 

with you ever at all. This child knows you 

as an absentee father who is trying really 

hard to see her, but the . . . the . . . you 

know, the reports I have are that the time 

that you did have visitations, they may have 

gone well from your stand point, but it was 

not an indication that she would be 

comfortable living with you on a sole basis. 

 So what I'm saying to you is that I 

don't . . . I don't think it's in the best 

interest of the child to give you joint . . . 

give you sole custody. I do not think that 

this child would be best served by being in 

your sole custody. 

 The order from which father appeals notes that father failed 

to present sufficient evidence warranting entry of an order 

granting father sole custody. The record demonstrates that the 

trial court made its decision based upon the child's best 

interests. Therefore, as we cannot say the trial court's 

decision to deny father's request for sole custody is clearly 

wrong or an abuse of discretion, we affirm the trial court's 

decision. 

 Affirmed.