COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Annunziata, Agee and Senior Judge Coleman 

JAMI M. KRING 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* 

v. Record No. 2701-00-3 PER CURIAM 

 MAY 8, 2001 

NATHAN A. BEAN 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY 

Charles H. Smith, Jr., Judge 

 (Barry L. Proctor, on brief), for appellant. 

 (Sage B. Johnson; Johnson & Johnson, P.C., on 

brief), for appellee. 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not 

designated for publication.

 The sole issue in this case is whether the trial court abused 

its discretion in awarding custody of the minor child to Nathan A. 

Bean, the child's father. Upon review of the record and briefs of 

the parties, we conclude that the appeal of Jami M. Kring, the 

child's mother, is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily 

affirm the decision of the trial court. 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 they resided with Kring's parents, Donald and 

Cecilia Cottage, after Austin was born. They never married. 
 In August or September 1997, Bean and Kring had ended their 

relationship, and Bean moved to another residence, leaving Austin 

with Kring. The parties entered into an agreement in March 1999 

wherein Kring received primary physical custody of Austin, and 

Bean had liberal visitation with Austin and was required to pay 

monthly child support. Bean timely paid his child support and 

regularly exercised his visitation rights. 

 In February 2000, Bean learned from Kring's parents that 

Kring had gotten married, was residing at another residence, and 

had left Austin in their care. Kring did not tell Bean about the 

changes in Austin's living arrangements. Bean then filed a 

petition in the juvenile and domestic relations district court 

(J&DR court) seeking custody of Austin. The J&DR court found that 

Kring's circumstances had "ebbed and flowed considerably" over the 

past year with respect to her living arrangements and employment, 

whereas Bean's life had stablilized. The J&DR court also found 

that Kring had not kept Bean informed about Austin's living 

arrangements and had not consulted Bean concerning these changes. 

The J&DR court awarded Bean custody of Austin and ordered Kring to 

pay child support. Kring appealed the J&DR court decision to the 

trial court. 

 The trial court heard evidence on the custody matter on 

July 18, 2000. At that time, Bean had been employed for the same 

manufacturing company for three years. He was earning 

approximately $10 per hour. Bean testified that Austin had 

- 2 -
adjusted well to the change in custody. He had taken Austin on a 

vacation and had enrolled the child in swimming lessons. Austin 

has his own room and own bed at Bean's two-bedroom apartment. 

Austin sleeps with his grandparents when he stays at the Cottages' 

residence. 

 Bean testified that Kring had not paid any of the child 

support payments as ordered by the J&DR court. Bean also 

testified that Kring failed to inform him when she enrolled Austin 

in pre-school, enrolled Austin in counseling sessions, or took 

Austin to a summer camp. Bean testified that Kring never informed 

him of her work schedule so that he could have custody of Austin 

on days when Kring was working. At the time of the hearing, Bean 

had been taking Austin to the Cottages' residence on the days he 

worked. He had made arrangements to take Austin to a day care 

facility in the future. 

 Kring testified that she left her parents' residence in 

January 2000 to reside with a girlfriend, Wendy Campbell, who had 

recently had a baby and was experiencing financial difficulties. 

Kring had offered to "help" Campbell with the baby. Campbell 

testified that Kring and her then boyfriend, now husband, shared a 

bedroom in her apartment for about two weeks. Campbell stated 

that Kring was at the apartment for approximately twenty-four 

hours a day, four days per week. Neither Kring nor her boyfriend 

had jobs or contributed financially to the living expenses at 

Campbell's apartment, except occasionally buying groceries. 

- 3 -
Campbell never saw Austin at the apartment. Kring stated she did 

not take Austin with her to the apartment because it was not a 

"stable" environment for him. In January 2000 Kring married her 

boyfriend. 

 After Bean filed his petition for custody of Austin, Kring 

and her husband moved into the Cottages' residence. They both 

obtained employment at a fast food restaurant. Kring and her 

husband reside in the Cottages' basement. When Austin visits 

Kring, he sleeps on the second floor of the house with his 

grandparents. Kring testified that she takes care of Austin at 

the Cottages' residence 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 court awarded custody of Austin to Bean. Kring 

appeals that decision to this Court. 

ANALYSIS

 When determining which parent should have custody the trial 

court must decide what is in the best interests of a child and is 

required to consider the factors listed in Code § 20-124.3. The 

trial court is not required to quantify or elaborate on what 

weight or consideration it has given to each of the factors in 

Code § 20-124.3 or to weigh each factor equally. See Sargent v. 

Sargent, 20 Va. App. 694, 702, 460 S.E.2d 596, 599 (1995). The 

trial court's findings, however, must have some foundation based 

on the evidence in the record, and if the trial court's findings 

- 4 -
lack evidentiary support, its determination 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 decision will not be reversed unless plainly 

wrong or without evidence to support it. See Farley v. Farley, 9 

Va. App. 326, 327-28, 387 S.E.2d 794, 795 (1990). 

 Kring argues the trial court did not consider the factors 

listed in Code § 20-124.3 in making its decision. However, the 

court order entered on October 31, 2000 states that the trial 

court considered the factors set forth in the statute as well as 

the evidence presented at the hearing and the exhibits filed. 

Furthermore, at the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court 

emphasized that it based the custody decision on Austin's best 

interests. The trial court found that both Kring and Bean were 

capable of being "mature young people" and "good" and "fit" 

parents. However, the trial court concluded that Kring's move to 

Campbell's apartment had been "a ruse" in order for her "to be 

with her now husband." "The court is the judge of the credibility 

of the witnesses, and its findings are of great weight on appeal." 

Klein v. Klein, 11 Va. App. 155, 161, 396 S.E.2d 866, 869 (1990). 

The court further found that, prior to leaving the Cottages' 

residence, Kring should have made arrangements with Bean 

concerning Austin's care, stating that Bean should have had a 

- 5 -
"say-so" regarding where Austin would live once Kring left her 

parents' residence. 

 In addition, the trial court concluded that Kring's failure 

to cooperate with Bean and her failure to pay the court-ordered 

child support were factors to be considered. On the other hand, 

Bean had consistently paid child support and 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." However, the trial court found that Kring did not 

exhibit these characteristics, and it found that her lack of 

maturity had been an "impediment to her being the kind of mother 

she should be." 

 The record demonstrates that the trial court carefully 

considered and weighed the evidence. Its decision focused on 

Austin's best interests. We cannot say that the custody decision 

of the trial court was plainly wrong or without evidence to 

support it. Accordingly, the trial court's decision is affirmed. 

 Affirmed.

- 6 -