COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Elder, Bumgardner and Lemons 

STEVE HALL, CHERI HALL 

 AND STEVEN SHANE HALL 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record Nos. 1913-98-3 and 2467-98-3 PER CURIAM 

 JUNE 8, 1999 

JENNIFER KELLY DANDENEAU 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY 

Colin R. Gibb, Judge 

(Samuel V. S. Swindell; Joseph Graham 

Painter, Jr.; Kratman, Swindell & Crenshaw, 

P.C.; Painter & DeMuth, on brief), for 

appellants. 

 (K. Mike Fleenor, Jr.; Crowell, Nuckols, 

Layman, Aust & Fleenor, on brief), for 

appellee. 

 Steven Shane Hall (Hall) and his parents appeal the decision 

of the circuit court ordering Hall to pay certain travel expenses 

connected with the visitation of his children, Steven Chase Hall 

(Steven) and Christian Rhett Hall (Christian) with their mother, 

Jennifer Kelly Dandeneau (Dandeneau). On appeal, Hall contends 

that the trial court erred by (1) requiring Hall to pay all travel 

expenses for the children's visitation with Dandeneau in the 

summer of 1998; (2) requiring Hall to pay one-half of all 

subsequent travel costs; and (3) awarding Dandeneau too lengthy 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code § 17-116.010, 

this opinion is not designated for publication. 
-2-

periods of visitation. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of 

the parties, we conclude that these appeals are without merit. 

Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. 

See Rule 5A:27. 

 "In matters concerning custody and visitation, the welfare 

and best interests of the child are the 'primary, paramount, and 

controlling consideration(s).'" Kogon v. Ulerick, 12 Va. App. 

595, 596, 405 S.E.2d 441, 442 (1991) (citation omitted). 

In matters of a child's welfare, trial 

courts are vested with broad discretion in 

making the decisions necessary to guard and 

to foster a child's best interests. A trial 

court's determination of matters within its 

discretion is reversible on appeal only for 

an abuse of that discretion, and a trial 

court's decision will not be set aside 

unless plainly wrong or without evidence to 

support it. 

Farley v. Farley, 9 Va. App. 326, 328, 387 S.E.2d 794, 795 

(1990) (citations omitted). The record on appeal includes no 

transcript, but contains a Revised Written Statement and the 

trial court's written order. 

Travel Expenses

 Hall contends that the trial court failed to make a finding 

that it was in the best interests of the children that he pay 

the entire travel costs incurred during the 1998 summer 

visitation and share one-half the expenses for future 

visitation. We find no merit in these contentions. 
-3-

 The parties agreed in mediation that Dandeneau would have 

five weeks of visitation with the parties' sons in Oregon 

beginning in July 1998. At trial, the parties presented 

conflicting evidence concerning when Dandeneau told Hall she 

wanted visitation to begin, although it was clear that Dandeneau 

told Hall no later than May 1998 that she wanted her visitation 

to start during the first week of July. At some point, Hall 

resisted scheduling visitation, based upon "reported physical 

problems with the children." Evidence presented at the hearing 

indicated that one doctor advised against air travel to Oregon 

by the boys and that two other doctors expressed concerns about 

the interruption in Steven's therapy schedule. 

 It is clear that the trial court considered the best 

interests of the children when setting the visitation schedule. 

Based upon the evidence presented during the hearing, the trial 

court ordered that Steven's visitation be delayed until August 1 

and curtailed in length to ten days. Christian's visit was also 

shortened from the agreed upon five weeks, from July 18 until 

August 10. 

 We reject Hall's contention that the trial court was 

required to make a specific finding that it was in the best 

interests of the children to require him to pay the challenged 

travel expenses. The trial court's broad discretion to fashion 

the relief necessary to promote the children's best interests, 

based upon the current circumstances of the parties, included 
-4-

the authority to order the individual parents to bear the costs 

and responsibilities related to the travel necessitated by 

visitation. See Farley, 9 Va. App. at 328, 387 S.E.2d at 795. 

See also Code § 20-108. 

 There was evidence that the parties agreed that Dandeneau 

would have five weeks of visitation during the summer of 1998. 

While Hall alleges that the trial court ordered him to bear the 

costs of transporting the children to Oregon and back as a 

punitive measure, nothing in the record before us supports that 

assertion. The order places the responsibility of getting the 

boys to and from Oregon on Hall for the 1998 summer visitation, 

but it also allows Hall to either pay for airfare or drive the 

boys. 

 Hall also contends that imposing travel expenses on him for 

1998 was an adjustment in child support which failed to satisfy 

the statutory requirements set out in Code § 20-108.1(B). We 

find no indication that Hall raised this argument before the 

trial court. "The Court of Appeals will not consider an 

argument on appeal which was not presented to the trial court." 

Ohree v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 299, 308, 494 S.E.2d 484, 488 

(1998). See Rule 5A:18. The record does not reflect any reason 

to invoke the good cause or ends of justice exceptions to Rule 

5A:18. We do not consider this argument further. 
-5-

 For the reasons previously set out, we also find no abuse 

of discretion in the trial court's decision ordering the parents 

to share future travel expenses evenly. 

Length of Visitation

 We find no merit in Hall's contention that the trial court 

erred by implementing a visitation schedule reached by the 

parents in mediation. The trial court retains jurisdiction to 

adjust visitation as required by circumstances in the future. 

See Code § 20-108. 

 Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily 

affirmed. 

Affirmed.