COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Chafin, Mal veaux and Senior Judge Haley

SILVIA MUNOZ, F/K/A SILVIA MUNOZ QUINONES MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 1834- 18-4 PER CURIAM APRIL 2, 2019 ALVARO QUINONES

FROM THE CIRCUIT COUR T OF FAIRFAX COUNTY Stephen C. Shannon, Judge (Silvia Munoz, on brief), pro se . No brief for appellee.
Silvia Munoz (mother) appeals a custody and visitation order. Mother argues that the circuit court erred by (1) finding that there was a material change in circumstances; (2) placing the burden of proving the material change i n circumstances on mother; (3) considering erroneous facts that were not supported by the eviden ce; (4) not finding that Alvaro Quinones (father) lacked credibility; (5) ignoring mother’s evidence relevant to the best interests o f the children; (6) not reconsidering its ruling based on new evidence pres ented in mother’s motion to re consider; and (7) not considering the parties’ financial information in its award of attorney’s f ees. Upon reviewing the record and the opening brief, we conclude t hat this appeal is without meri t. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the cir cuit court. See Rule 5A:27. BACKGROUND “On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to . . . the party prevailing below.” D’Ambrosio v. D’Ambrosio, 45 Va. App. 323, 335 (2005).

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this op inion is not designated fo r publication.UNPUBLISHED- 2 - The parties were married i n 2000, and two children were born d uring the marriage. In May 2012, the parties entered into a property settlement agreem ent (PSA) and agreed that they would share joint legal custody of the children. The parties f urther established a custody schedule, which included overnight visitation for father. On M arch 27, 2013, the circuit court affirmed, ratified, and incorporat ed the parties’ PSA into the final decree of divorce. In April 2016, mother filed a m otion to modify father’s visita tion. On July 14, 2016, the circuit court entered an order m odifying father’s visitation an d ordered that f ather would not have overnight visitatio n with the children. In March 2017, mother filed anoth er motion to modify custody a nd visitation and asserted that it was in the best interests of the children for them to relocate wit h her to Colombia, where she had family. Three days before the trial on mother’s motion, she non-suited the matter. In 2018, father filed a motion a nd an amended motion to modify visitation. He requested overnight and holiday visitation w ith the children, as well as clarification of the July 14, 2016 order. Mother also filed a m otion to modify custody and visita tion. She requested sole legal custody and permission to travel w ith the children to Colombia for five weeks each year. She also sought to reduce father’s visitation time with the childre n. On July 25 and 26, 2018, the parties appeared before the circu it court for a hearing on custody and visitation. After hear ing the evidence and argumen t, the circuit court found that there was a material change in c ircumstances since the July 201 6 order, namely that father’s residence now allowed for the children to have their own bedroo m and bathroom. Then, the circuit court reviewed the Code § 20-124.3 factors with the par ties. The circuit court granted father’s motions and ordered tha t father could have overnight v isits with the children on weekends, holidays, and summer br eak, consistent with the visit ation in the PSA and final decree of divorce. The circuit court denied mother’s motion to modify custody and visitation, including- 3 - her request to take the children to Colombia for five weeks. T he circuit court awarded father $7,500 for his attorney’s fees. The circuit court entered an o rder memorializing its rulings on September 14, 2018. Mother filed a m otion to reconsider and a motion to stay, which the circuit court denied. This appeal followed. ANALYSIS “A trial court’s determinati on with regard to visitation is rev ersible only upon a showing that the court abused its dis cretion.” Stadter v. Siperko, 52 Va. App. 81, 88 (2008). Material change in circumstances Mother argues that the circui t court erred in finding that the re had been a material change in circumstances since the J uly 2016 order. She asserts that t he circuit court did not have all of the information surrounding the cancellation of f ather’s overni ght visits in 2016. “When a party has filed a peti tion to modify an existing visit ation order, the courts must apply the Supreme Court’s two-pr onged test enunciated in Keel v . Keel, 225 Va. 606 (1983), to determine whether modification of that order is proper.” Rhode s v. Lang, 66 Va. App. 702, 709 (2016). “That test asks, ‘first , has there been a change in ci rcumstances since the most recent custody award; second, would a c hange in custody be in the best interests of the children.’” Id. (quoting Keel, 225 Va. at 611). “Wh ether a change of circumsta nces exists is a factual finding that will not be disturbed on a ppeal if the finding is supporte d by credible evidence.” Denise v. Tencer, 46 Va. App. 372, 395 (2005) ( quoting Ohlen v. Shively, 16 Va. App. 419, 423 (1993)). Father testified that since the July 2016 order, he had renova ted the basement in his house and now had a bedroom for the child ren to sleep overnight at hi s house. He presented photographs of the bedroom and the renovations. When mother ar gued to the circ uit court that father’s living situa tion was not the onl y reason that father’s overnight visits were cancelled in- 4 - 2016, the circuit court noted tha t mother did not object to fat her’s testimony that the renovation was the change. 1 Mother, however, had an opportunit y to present her evidence ab out the material change in circumstances when she tes tified in support of her motion to modify custody and visitation. 2 She testified about father’s al cohol consumption on social occa sions and argued that it affected his time with the children. She a lso alleged that the children appeared “happier and [felt] more confident and stable” when they s pent the night at her house. The circuit court rejected mothe r’s arguments about the materia l change in circumstances. Based on the rec ord, the circuit court did not err in finding tha t the renovation of father’s home, which provided pr ivate sleeping and bathroom fac ilities, was a material change in circumstances that warranted a modification of his visitation w ith the children. Witness credibility Mother argues that the circui t court erred by considering cert ain facts and testimony that father presented, which she conten ds was false. She also asser ts that the circu it court ignored some of her evidence regarding the best interests of the childr en. The circuit court had an opport unity to see and hear the witne sses. When it issued its ruling from the bench, the circuit court stated that it “fully considered the testimony of the witnesses” and “made determinati ons as to their credibility.” “It is well established that the trier

1 Mother did object when father t ried to argue that mother’s mov e to a new house was another change in circumstances . The circuit court did not all ow father to present evidence about mother’s change of address because he did not disclose it in di scovery.

2 Contrary to mother’s arguments in her second assignment of err or, the circuit court did not err by placing the burden on her to present a material chan ge of circumstances because she also had filed a motion to m odify custody and visitation. See Denise, 46 Va. App. at 396 (the party seeking to modify custody a nd visitation has the burden o f proving that a material change in circumstances occurred since the entry of the last order). Therefore, mother had to present evidence about what she perceive d had changed since the entry o f the July 2016 order.- 5 - of fact ascertains a witness’ credibility, determines the weigh t to be given to their testimony, and has discretion to accept or reject any of the witness’ testimon y.” Layman v. Layman, 62 Va. App. 134, 137 (2013) (quoting Street v. Street, 25 Va. App. 380, 387 (1997) ( en banc )). “This Court is bound by the credib ility findings of the circuit court.” Tackett v. Arlington Cty. Dep’t of Human Servs., 62 Va. App. 296, 339 (2013). Contrary to mother’s assertions , the record supports the circu it court’s findings and its ruling allowing overnight visitation to father. New evidence Mother argues that the circ uit court erred by not reconsiderin g its ruling based on new evidence that she presented in her motion to reconsider. In he r motion, mother alleged that after the hearing, the children struggl ed with the change in visitati on and that father was being manipulative. 3 “Motions to reopen an evidentiary record or to reconsider a pri or ruling involve matters wholly in the discretion of the t rial court.” Thomas v. Common wealth, 62 Va. App. 104, 109 (2013); see also Winston v. C ommonwealth, 268 Va. 564, 620 (200 4) (“We review a trial court’s denial of a motion to reconsider for an abuse of discretion.”). Based on the record, we find that the circuit court did not ab use its discretion in denying mother’s motion to reconsider. Rule 5A:18 For the first time on appeal, mot her argues that the circuit c ourt did not consider the parties’ financial informati on when it awarded $7,500 to father for attorney’s fees.

3 We will not consider mother’s a dditional arguments in her open ing brief, which were not presented to the circuit cour t. See Rule 5A:18; Tackett, 6 2 Va. App. at 315.- 6 - “No ruling of the trial court . . . will be considered as a bas is for reversal unless an objection was stated with reasonabl e certainty at the time of t he ruling, except for good cause shown or to enable the Court of A ppeals to attain the ends of j ustice.” Rule 5A:18. “The Court of Appeals will not consider an argument on appeal which was no t presented to the trial court.” Tackett, 62 Va. App. at 315 (quo ting Ohree v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 299, 308 (1998)). “One of the tenets of Virginia’s jurisprudence is that trial co unsel must timely object with sufficient specificity to an alle ged error at trial to preserve that error for appella te review.” Perry v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 65 5, 666 (2011). “The purpose of Rule 5A:18 is ‘to ensure that the trial court and opposing party a re given the opportunity to intelligently address, examine, and resolve issues in the trial c ourt, thus avoiding unnecessary ap peals.’” Friedman v. Smith, 68 Va. App. 529, 544 (2018) (quoting Andrews v. Commonwealth, 37 V a. App. 479, 493 (2002)). Accordingly, we will not consider mother’s arguments regarding the award of attorney’s fees. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the circuit court’s ruling is summar ily affirmed. Rule 5A:27. Affirmed.