COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judg e Elder, Senior Judg es Overton and Bray

BERNICE WILSON MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 08 87-02-4 PER CURIAM SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 FAIRFAX COUNTY DE PARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES

FROM THE CIRCUIT COUR T OF FAIRFAX COUNTY R. Terrence Ney, Judge (Francis G. McBride, on brief), for appellant. (David P. Bobzien, Co unty Attorney; Peter D. Andreoli, Deputy County Attorn ey; Dennis R. Bates, Senior Assist ant County Attorney; Jessica C. Friedman , Assistan t County Attorney, on brief), for appellee. (Glenn L. Clayton, II, on brief), Guardian ad litem for Justin Wilson, Sr., father of the infant children. (Michael S. Arif; Martin, Arif, Petrovich & Walsh, on brief), Guardian ad litem for the infant children.

Bernice Wilson (mot her) appeals the deci sion of th e circuit court dismissing her appeal from the juvenile and domestic relations dist rict (JDR) court fo r failure to appe ar. She argues the trial court ab used its discreti on. Upon review ing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclu de that this ap peal is without

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.merit. Accordingly, we summaril y affirm the decisi on of the trial

court. See Rule 5A:27. On appeal, we view the evidence and all the re asonable inferences in th e light most favorable to appellee as the party prevailing below. See McGuire v. McGuire , 10 Va. App. 248, 250, 391 S.E.2d 344, 346 (1990). BACKGROUND Mother's twin childr en were removed from her care following findings of abuse and neglect. Th ey were placed in the home of mother's cousin, Denise Shelton, and her husb and. On January 9, 2001, the Sheltons petitioned the JDR court to be reliev ed of the custody of the childr en, citing destructiv e behavior. Earlene Young, mother's moth er, and mother each filed petitions for custody in response. On June 19, 2001, the district court granted the Sheltons' peti tions for relief of custody and de nied mother's and Young's custod y petitions. Mother and Young both noted ap peals to the circ uit court, and a trial de novo was scheduled for January 22, 2002. On that date, mother and Young failed to appear when th e case was called. Counsel for the Sh eltons and the Department of Family Services moved the court to dismiss the appe al based on moth er's failure to appear. The trial cour t granted the motion.
ANALYSIS Issues related to control of a court's docket are committed to the sound discretion of the court, and will not be reversed

- 2 -on appeal unless there is a showing of an abuse of discretion and prejudice to the party seeking a different trial date. See Mills v. Mills , 232 Va. 94, 96, 348 S.E.2d 250, 252 (1986) (citing Autry v. Bryan , 224 Va. 451, 454, 297 S.E.2d 690, 692 (1982)). "The determination whether a trial court has abused its discretion is fact-specific." Walsh v. Bennett , 260 Va. 171, 175, 530 S.E.2d 904, 907 (2000). The circuit court was aware that mother had failed to appear before the district court on several occasions. Her absence was voluntary and unexplained. Counsel for mother did not ask the court to proceed without her presence and only "ask[ed] the court's indulgence as far as her arrival [was] concerned." Mother has not demonstrated that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the appeal. Accordingly, we su mmarily affirm the de cision of the trial

court. See Rule 5A:27. Affirmed.

- 3 -