COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bumgardner, Kelsey and Senior Judge Hodges 

GRANT LEWIS CLATTERBUCK 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1775-02-3 PER CURIAM 

 DECEMBER 10, 2002 

CANDACE JANE MARTIN CLATTERBUCK 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ROANOKE COUNTY 

Jonathan M. Apgar, Judge 

 (Leisa K. Ciaffone, on briefs), for 

appellant. 

 (Barry M. Tatel; Neil E. McNally; Key, 

Tatel & McNally, on brief), for appellee. 

 Grant Lewis Clatterbuck (husband) appeals from a final decree 

awarding Candace Jane Martin Clatterbuck (wife) a divorce. On 

appeal, husband contends the trial court erred by finding good 

cause existed under Code § 20-124.6 to deny him access to his 

child's counseling records. He argues the evidence does not 

support the finding. Husband asks that the trial court's decision 

be reversed and that he be provided access to the records. 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. See Rule 5A:27. 

 

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

designated for publication.
 On appeal, we view the evidence and all reasonable 

inferences in the 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). 

Procedural Background

 The parties married in 1980. They had three children during 

the course of their marriage. On January 23, 2001 wife filed a 

bill of complaint seeking a divorce. Their daughter, Lauren, was 

a minor at the time of the proceedings. 

 During the parties' separation, wife and Lauren were in 

counseling with Laurel Martin, a licensed professional counselor. 

Husband requested Lauren's records from Martin and subpoenaed the 

records when Martin did not produce them. 

 Holly Peters, Lauren's guardian ad litem, informed the court 

that she advised the records not be released. She further 

reported that Lauren had requested the records remain private. 

Additionally, Martin, in a statement to the court, indicated "it 

would not be in Lauren's best interest to release her records to 

either parent." Martin opined the trust between Lauren and her 

counselor would "be undermined by the knowledge that [Lauren's] 

records were being disclosed." The records were filed with the 

court under seal. The court determined good cause existed to deny 

husband access to his daughter's counseling records. 

- 2 -
Analysis

 Code § 20-124.6 provides that, "[n]otwithstanding any other 

provision of law, neither parent, regardless of whether such 

parent has custody, shall be denied access to the academic, 

medical, hospital or other health records of that parent's minor 

child unless otherwise ordered by the court for good cause 

shown." 

 "The trial court's decision, when based 

upon an ore tenus hearing, is entitled to 

great weight and will not be disturbed 

unless plainly wrong or without evidence to 

support it." "Certainly it is true that the 

legal rights of the parent should be 

respected . . . but the welfare of the child 

is to be regarded more highly than the 

technical legal rights of the parent." 

Green v. Richmond Dep't of Soc. Serv., 35 Va. App. 682, 686-87, 

547 S.E.2d 548, 550 (2001) (citations omitted). 

 Peters and Martin indicated the release of Lauren's records 

could impair Lauren's counseling. Lauren stated she wished the 

records to remain private. The trial judge indicated he 

considered the opinions of the counselor and guardian ad litem, as 

well as Lauren's wishes. The evidence supports the trial court's 

determination that good cause existed to deny husband access to 

the records. 

 Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial 

court. See Rule 5A:27. 

Affirmed. 

- 3 -