COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judg es Annunziata, Agee and Senior Judge Coleman

JAMI M. KRING MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 27 01-00-3 PER CURIAM MAY 8, 2001 NATHAN A. BEAN

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY Charles H. Smit h, Jr., Judge (Barry L. Proctor, on brief), for appellant. (Sage B. Johnson; John son & Johnson, P.C., on brief), for appellee.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. The sole issue in th is case is whether th e trial cour t abused its discretion in awarding custody of the mi nor child to Nathan A. Bean, the child' s father. Upon re view of the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that th e appeal of Jami M. Kring, the child's mother, is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial cour t. Rule 5A:27. BACKGROUND Bean and Kring are the parents of Austin Bean, who was born on April 3, 1996. Bean and Kring were in high school when Austin was born, and th ey resided with Kring' s parents, Donald and Cecilia Cottage, after Austin was born . They ne ver married.In August or Sept ember 1997, Bean and Kring had ended their relationship, and Bean moved to another resi dence, leaving Austin with Kring. The part ies entered into an agreement in March 1999 wherein Kring rece ived primary physical custody of Austin, and Bean had liberal visita tion with Austin and was required to pay monthly child supp ort. Bean timely paid his child support and regularly exerci sed his visitati on rights. In February 2000, Bean lear ned from Kring' s parents that Kring had gotten marrie d, was residing at an other reside nce, and had left Austin in th eir care. Kring did no t tell Bean about the changes in Austin's living arrangements. Bean then filed a petition in the juvenile and domestic re lations dist rict court (J&DR court) seeking cu stody of Austin. The J&DR court found that Kring's circum stances had "e bbed and flowed cons iderably" over the past year with respec t to her living arrang ements and employment, whereas Bean's li fe had stablilize d. The J&DR co urt also found that Kring had not ke pt Bean informed ab out Austin's living arrangements and had no t consulted Bean concerning these changes. The J&DR court awarded Bean custody of Austin and ordere d Kring to pay child support. Kring appealed the J&DR court decision to the trial court. The trial cour t heard evidence on the custod y matter on July 18, 2000. At that time, Bean had been employed for the same manufacturing co mpany for thre e years. He was earning approximately $1 0 per hour. Bean test ified that Austin had

- 2 -adjusted well to the ch ange in custody. He had take n Austin on a vacation and had enroll ed the child in swimmi ng lessons. Austin has his own room and ow n bed at Bean's two- bedroom apar tment. Austin sleeps with his grandparents wh en he stays at the Cottages' residence. Bean testified that Kring ha d not paid any of the child support paymen ts as ordered by the J& DR court. Bean also testified that Kring fail ed to inform him when she enrolled Austin in pre-school, en rolled Austin in counse ling sessions, or took Austin to a summer camp. Bean te stified that Krin g never informed him of her work schedule so that he could ha ve custody of Austin on days when Kring was working. At the time of the hearing, Bean had been taking Austin to the Cottag es' residence on the days he worked. He had made arrangements to take Austin to a day care facility in the future. Kring testifie d that she left her pa rents' residence in January 2000 to reside with a gi rlfriend, Wendy Ca mpbell, who had recently had a baby an d was experienci ng financial di fficulties. Kring had offered to "help" Campbell with the baby. Campbell testified that Kring an d her then boyfriend, now husband, shared a bedroom in her apartmen t for about two weeks. Camp bell stated that Kring was at th e apartment fo r approximately twenty-four hours a day, four days per week. Neither Kr ing nor her boyfriend had jobs or cont ributed financ ially to the livi ng expenses at Campbell's apartment, except occasionally buying groceries.

- 3 -Campbell never saw Aust in at the apar tment. Kring stated she did not take Austin with her to the apartment because it was not a "stable" environment fo r him. In January 20 00 Kring married her boyfriend. After Bean filed hi s petition for custod y of Austin, Kring and her husband mo ved into the Cottages' re sidence. They both obtained employment at a fast food restau rant. Kring and her husband reside in the Cottages' ba sement. When Austin visits Kring, he sleeps on the second floor of the house with his grandparents. Kring te stified that she takes care of Austin at the Cottages' resi dence on the days she does not work. Kring admitted she had never provided Bean with a copy of her work schedule despite the J&DR court order to do so. The trial cour t awarded custod y of Austin to Bean. Kring appeals that decisi on to this Court. ANALYSIS When determining wh ich parent should ha ve custody the trial court must decide what is in the best intere sts of a child and is required to cons ider the factors listed in Code § 20-124.3. The trial court is not requ ired to quantify or elaborate on what weight or consid eration it has given to each of the factors in Code § 20-124.3 or to weig h each factor equally. See Sargent v. Sargent , 20 Va. App. 694, 702, 460 S.E.2d 596, 59 9 (1995). The trial court's find ings, however, mu st have some fo undation based on the evidence in th e record, and if the tr ial court's findings

- 4 -lack evidentiary suppor t, its determin ation of child custody is an abuse of discretion. Cf. Trivett v. Trivett , 7 Va. App. 148, 153-54, 371 S.E.2d 560, 563 (1988). The trial court is vested with broad discretion to safeguard and promote the child's interests, and its deci sion will not be reve rsed unless plainly wrong or without eviden ce to support it. See Farley v. Farley , 9 Va. App. 326, 32 7-28, 387 S.E.2d 794, 795 (1990). Kring argues the trial court did not consider the factors listed in Code § 20-1 24.3 in making its de cision. However, the court order entere d on October 31 , 2000 states that the trial court considered the factors set fo rth in the statut e as well as the evidence presented at the hearing and th e exhibits filed. Furthermore, at the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court emphasized that it ba sed the custody decision on Au stin's best interests. The trial court found that both Kring and Bean were capable of being "mat ure young peop le" and "good" and "fit" parents. Howeve r, the trial court concluded that Kring's move to Campbell's apartment ha d been "a ruse" in order for her "to be with her now husband." "The court is the ju dge of the credibility of the witnesses, and it s findings are of great weight on appeal." Klein v. Klein , 11 Va. App. 155, 161, 39 6 S.E.2d 866, 869 (1990). The court furthe r found that, pr ior to leaving the Cottages' residence, Kring shou ld have made arrang ements with Bean concerning Austin's ca re, stating that Bean should have had a

- 5 -"say-so" regarding wher e Austin would live once Kring left her parents' residence. In addition, the tr ial court conc luded that Kring's failure to cooperate with Bean and her failure to pay the cour t-ordered child support were factors to be considered. On the other hand, Bean had consistently paid child support an d regularly exercised his visitation rights with Austin. The trial court was "very impressed with [Bean] 's stability," "demeanor," "maturity," and the arrangements he had made to care for Austin. The trial court stated, "I think he's got his head on straight now and his act together." Howe ver, the trial court fo und that Kring did not exhibit these char acteristics, and it fo und that her lack of maturity had been an "impediment to her bein g the kind of mother she should be." The record demonstrates th at the trial co urt carefully considered and weighe d the evidence. Its decision focused on Austin's best inte rests. We cann ot say that the custody decision of the trial court wa s plainly wron g or without evidence to support it. Accordingl y, the trial court's de cision is affirmed. Affirmed.

- 6 -