COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick 

MARY WRIGHT JUAREZ 

v. Record No. 1340-95-2 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

GILBERT E. JUAREZ FEBRUARY 13, 1996 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY 

Herbert C. Gill, Jr., Judge 

 (Mary Wright Juarez, pro se, on briefs). 

 (Richard F. Papcun, on brief), for appellee. 

 Mary Wright Juarez (mother) appeals the decision of the 

circuit court granting sole custody of her three youngest 

children to Gilbert E. Juarez (father). Mother argues that there 

was insufficient evidence to (1) deny her request to change 

custody of Kathleen and Mark from father to mother; (2) justify 

changing custody of John from mother to father; and (3) deny all 

visitation by mother with Kathleen, Mark and John. 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:27.1

 On appeal, we review the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the prevailing party below. Peple v. Peple, 5 Va. 

 

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

designated for publication. 

 1Our decision on the issues raised by mother in her appeal 

makes it unnecessary for us to address the additional questions 

raised by father. 
 2 

App. 414, 422, 364 S.E.2d 232, 237 (1988). The trial court 

received the evidence by ore tenus testimony of the parties and 

their witnesses and through depositions. Its order is presumed 

correct and will not be overturned if it is supported by 

substantial, competent and credible evidence. See Collier v. 

Collier, 2 Va. App. 125, 127, 341 S.E.2d 827, 828 (1986). 

Custody of Kathleen and Mark

 The parent seeking to change custody bears the burden of 

proving that there has been a change in circumstances since the 

most recent custody award and that the best interests of the 

child warrant a change in custody. Keel v. Keel, 225 Va. 606, 

611, 303 S.E.2d 917, 921 (1983). Thus, mother bore the burden to 

prove that a change in circumstances had occurred which warranted 

granting her custody of Kathleen and Mark. The trial court found 

there was evidence of an improvement in mother's ability to 

maintain a job and a home. However, the court noted that mother 

continued to question her children concerning her unsubstantiated 

allegations of sexual abuse by father, despite a finding by 

Chesterfield Social Services that mother's questioning 

constituted emotional abuse. Contrary to court order, mother 

continued to question John about sexual abuse by father, 

continued to call Kathleen and Mark almost daily, and continued 

to attempt to visit with Kathleen and Mark by arriving at 

father's home and refusing to leave. 

 While Kathleen and Mark have been in father's custody, they 
 3 

have participated in activities and done well in school. The 

court found that the children were "physically and emotionally 

thriving in [father's] full custody" and that father "has 

provided a stable environment for these children." The court's 

conclusions were fully supported by substantial, competent and 

credible evidence. Therefore, we cannot say the trial court 

erred or abused its discretion in denying mother's petition to 

change the custody of Kathleen and Mark to herself. 

Custody of John

 The evidence established that mother had a close 

relationship with John and was attentive to his needs. However, 

mother admitted that she had questioned John regarding her 

allegations of sexual abuse, contrary to court order. 

 Moreover, as noted above, mother's questioning regarding her 

allegations of sexual abuse was found to constitute emotional 

abuse of Kathleen and Mark. Among other incidents, mother taped 

a conversation she had with Kathleen and Mark which mother argued 

demonstrated father had abused them. The children, however, told 

their counselor that mother would spank them if they failed to 

answer her questions the way she wanted them to. Neither 

Kathleen or Mark appeared to be emotionally bonded with mother. 

 The court found that mother's persistent questioning of the 

three children concerning her allegations of sexual abuse was a 

negative change in mother's circumstances. The questioning 

amounted to emotional abuse of the children, and was "clearly not 
 4 

in the best interest of the children." 

 Substantial, competent and credible evidence supports the 

decision of the circuit court that a negative change in 

circumstances warranted transferring custody of John from mother 

to father. Therefore, we cannot say that the court abused its 

discretion in transferring custody. 

Denial of Visitation

 The trial court denied mother all visitation, noting however 

that it "will be amenable to hearing from [mother] in a 

subsequent proceeding regarding any proposed plan of hers for 

supervised visitation, including times, places of visitation, and 

the supervisor of such visitation." The record demonstrated that 

mother had violated previous court orders barring her from 

questioning the children about the alleged sexual abuse, and had 

refused to abide by previous court-ordered limitations on 

visitation. In light of the risk to the children's emotional 

well-being demonstrated by mother's past actions, we cannot say 

the trial court abused its discretion in denying mother 

visitation until a plan for supervised visitation was approved. 

 Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily 

affirmed. 

 Affirmed.