COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick 

GRAHAM N. SWORD 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0753-96-1 PER CURIAM 

 SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 

SHARON ANN SWORD 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH 

Alan E. Rosenblatt, Judge 

 (William F. Burnside, on brief), for 

appellant. 

 (Edward J. Pontifex, Jr., on brief), for 

appellee. 

 Graham N. Sword (father) appeals the decision of the circuit 

court awarding custody of the parties' youngest child to Sharon 

Ann Sword (mother). Father raises four questions on appeal which 

may be summarized as whether there was sufficient evidence to 

prove that the child's best interests warranted the award of 

custody to mother. 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. 

 "When addressing matters concerning a child . . . the 

paramount consideration of a trial court is the child's best 

interests." Logan v. Fairfax County Dep't of Human Dev., 13 Va. 

App. 123, 128, 409 S.E.2d 460, 463 (1991). See Code § 20-124.3. 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

 "'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.'" Logan, 13 Va. App. at 128, 

409 S.E.2d at 463 (citations omitted). 

 Although a child's preference "should be 

considered and given appropriate weight," it 

does not control the custody determination 

and is just one factor to be considered. As 

long as the trial court examines the factors, 

it is not "required to quantify or elaborate 

exactly what weight or consideration it has 

given to each of the statutory factors." 

Sargent v. Sargent, 20 Va. App. 694, 702, 460 S.E.2d 596, 599 

(1995) (citations omitted). 

 The commissioner who conducted the ore tenus hearing also 

spoke in camera with the child. The commissioner's report 

demonstrates that he considered the factors set out in Code 

§ 20-124.3 before recommending the custody arrangement he found 

to be in the child's best interests. Based upon the statutory 

factors and the evidence, the commissioner recommended a split 

custody arrangement, with father having legal and physical 

custody of the older son pursuant to the parties' agreement and 

mother retaining legal and physical custody of the younger son. 

 On appeal, father contends that the evidence demonstrates 

that the child's best interests would be better served by 

awarding him custody. Father alleges that mother interfered with 

his visitation and telephone contact with the child. He also 

contends that mother's romantic relationship created an immoral 

environment, and her relocations to be near her boyfriend 
 3 

demonstrated a propensity to ignore the relationship between 

father and son. 

 However, the evidence indicated that mother had been 

actively involved in the child's life both before and after the 

parties' separation. Mother encouraged his involvement in Boy 

Scouts and participated in his schooling. While father alleged 

mother interfered with visitation, there was evidence that father 

failed to communicate his plans to mother and that the child was 

reluctant to visit with father. The commissioner found the child 

to be "of reasonable intelligence, understanding, age and 

experience" so as to be able to express a preference in his 

living arrangement. Mother testified that she and her boyfriend 

hoped to marry, although she admitted her romantic involvement 

was adulterous. 

 Evidence supports the decision of the trial court overruling 

father's objections and affirming the commissioner's 

recommendation. We will not overturn the decision, based upon 

evidence heard ore tenus, absent clear error or abuse of 

discretion. 

 Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily 

affirmed. 

 Affirmed.