COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Bumgardner, Ke lsey and Senior Judge Hodges

GRANT LEWIS CLATTERBUCK MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 17 75-02-3 PER CURIAM DECEMBER 10, 2002 CANDACE JANE MART IN CLATTERBUCK

FROM THE CIRCUIT COUR T 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 Clat terbuck (husband ) appeals from a final decree awarding Candace Jane Martin Clatterbuck (wif e) a divorce. On appeal, husband co ntends the trial court erred by finding good cause existed unde r Code § 20-124.6 to de ny him access to his child's counse ling records. He argues the evidence does not support the findin g. Husband asks that the trial court's decision be reversed and that he be provided access to the record s. Upon reviewing the reco rd and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is withou t merit. Acco rdingly, we su mmarily affirm the decision of th e 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 marr ied in 1980. They had three children during the course of th eir marriage. On January 23, 2001 wife filed a bill of complain t seeking a divorc e. Their daught er, Lauren, was a minor at the time of the procee dings. During the parties' separati on, wife and Lauren were in counseling with La urel Martin, a li censed profession al counselor. Husband reques ted Lauren's records from Martin and subpoenaed the records when Martin di d not produc e them. Holly Peters, La uren's guardian ad litem , informed the court that she advised the records not be rele ased. She further reported that La uren had requested the re cords remain private. Additionally, Martin, in a statement to the court, indicated "it would not be in Lauren's best interest to releas e her records to either parent." Mart in opined the trust be tween Lauren and her counselor would "b e undermined by the knowledge th at [Lauren's] records were being disc losed." The records were filed with the court under seal. The court determ ined good cause existed to deny husband access to his daughter's co unseling 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 re lease of Laur en's records could impair Lauren's counseling. Lauren st ated she wished the records to remain pr ivate. The trial judge in dicated he considered the opinions of the counselor and guardian ad litem , as well as Lauren's wish es. The evidence supp orts the trial court's determination that good cause existed to deny hu sband access to the records. Accordingly, we su mmarily affirm the de cision of the trial

court. See Rule 5A:27. Affirmed

.

- 3 -