COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bumgardner, Kelsey and Senior Judge Hodges 

THOMAS L. SWITZER 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0779-02-3 PER CURIAM 

 OCTOBER 29, 2002 

SAMUEL S. SMITH, JODY B. SMITH AND 

 PAULA SWITZER 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF STAUNTON 

Humes J. Franklin, Jr., Judge 

 (Thomas Switzer, pro se, on briefs). 

 No brief for appellees.1

 (Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General; 

 Craig M. Burshem, Senior Assistant Attorney 

General; Alice G. Burlinson, Regional 

Speical Counsel; Steven P. Roadcap, Special 

Counsel, on brief), for Commonwealth of 

Virginia, Department of Social Services, 

Division of Child Support Enforcement. 

 On March 21, 2002, the trial court conducted a trial de novo

regarding a show cause motion filed by Samuel Smith and Jody B. 

Smith, nee Botkin, on July 6, 2001 against Thomas L. Switzer 

(father). The Smiths requested that father be held in contempt 

pursuant to Code § 16.1-278.16 for his failure to provide support 

 

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

designated for publication.

1

 We will not consider appellees' brief because appellees' 

attorneys refused to comply with Rule 5A:4(b)'s requirement that 

all briefs "shall be bound" in a specified manner and Rule 

5A:24's requirement that appellees' brief bear a blue cover. 
as required by an October 1, 1999 order. 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. Rule 5A:27. 

 Furthermore, appellant has filed the following motions: 

Motion to File a Reply Brief, Motion for a Preliminary Stay, 

Motion for Leave to Amend or Vacate Judgments of the Trial Court, 

and Motion for Leave to Change Venue. We deny these motions. 

BACKGROUND 

 By order dated March 7, 2000, the Augusta County Circuit 

Court awarded the custody of father's child to Samuel Smith and 

Jody Botkin, now Jody Smith. We concluded that father's appeal of 

that order was without merit, and we summarily affirmed the trial 

court. See Switzer v. Smith, Record No. 0779-00-3 (Va. Ct. App. 

July 31, 2001), appeal refused by the Supreme Court of Virginia in 

Record No. 012108 (Va. February 26, 2002). In that case, father 

unsuccessfully appealed the trial court's authority and decision 

to award custody of appellant's son to Smith and Botkin, and he 

alleged numerous constitutional violations, which arguments were 

either not preserved or were determined to be without merit. 

ISSUES ON APPEAL 

 On this appeal, father raises the following nine issues: (1) 

whether the trial court had authority to bind him "into a child 

care arrangement" which interferes with his parental rights; (2) 

whether the custody arrangement is in the child's best interest 

- 2 -
and legally binding: (3) whether awarding custody to the Smiths 

required the parents' signatures on an adoption decree or a 

formal agreement; (4) whether the award of custody was a de

facto illegal adoption; (5) whether the trial court erred in 

failing to question the mother's competency when the mother 

placed the child with the Smiths; (6) whether "such a 

[custodial] arrangement violate[s] Constitutional rights of the 

father and child"; (7) whether the trial court had the authority 

to hold father liable for support payments; (8) whether the 

trial court had authority to apply a portion of father's 

accident settlement proceeds to his child support obligation; 

and (9) whether "said arrangement [granting custody to the 

Smiths] is null and void" making the Smiths and their counsel 

civilly and criminally liable. 

FACTS RELATING TO THIS APPEAL 

 On July 9, 2001, the Smiths filed a show cause petition in 

the juvenile and domestic relations district court (juvenile 

court) requesting that father "be imprisoned, fined or otherwise 

punished" for "failure to provide [child] support as ordered on 

October 1, 1999," pursuant to Code § 16.1-278.16. On July 16, 

2001, the juvenile court directed that a show cause summons be 

issued against father. By order dated July 26, 2001, the 

juvenile court found father guilty of civil contempt, sentenced 

him to serve sixty days in jail, suspended the sentence on 

condition father pay $65 per month for support and $25 toward 

- 3 -
the arrearage. The juvenile court ordered that father's wages 

be withheld, with a review scheduled on December 5, 2001. By 

handwritten notation dated December 5, 2001, the juvenile judge 

imposed thirty days of the sixty-day sentence, with the balance 

of sixty days to remain suspended. The juvenile judge directed 

father "to commence serving" the thirty-day sentence "on Fri., 

12/7/01 at 6:00 p.m.," and added that the finding of contempt 

"may be purged by payment of $1,000." 

 That same juvenile court order also contains an additional 

hand-written notation dated February 8, 2002, in which the 

juvenile judge directed father "to report to serve 30 days on 

2/14/02 at 9:00 a.m. May purge by payment of balance of $1,000 

previously ordered ($900)" (the pay or report order). 

 The juvenile court's manuscript record contains a receipt 

from the Department of Social Services (DSS), Division of Child 

Support Enforcement (DCSE), for $900 dated February 14, 2002. 

The receipt indicates that Carleen Switzer appeared in person 

and submitted a money order on behalf of father. 

 Father appealed the juvenile court's decision to the 

circuit court, which heard the matter de novo on March 21, 2002. 

After "[h]aving considered all relevant material evidence," the 

trial court, by order dated March 21, 2002, dismissed DSS as a 

party. The trial court further found "that the father has paid 

the amount ordered and, therefore, this appeal is moot and shall 

be, and hereby is, dismissed." 

- 4 -
THE RECORD ON APPEAL 

 On April 22, 2002, father filed in the trial court a 

"Statement of Facts in Lieu of Transcript." On May 3, 2002, 

Special Counsel for DCSE filed objections to father's statement 

of facts. The trial court "sustain[ed] the Objections to 

Appellant's Statement of Facts" and adopted the facts as recited 

in the DCSE document "as the Statement of Facts in this case." 

 The signed Statement of Facts summarizes the issues before 

and rulings by the juvenile judge. It also references father's 

payment of $900 and his noting an appeal de novo to the circuit 

court. The remainder of the statement of facts discusses 

arguments related to DSS' motion that the Commonwealth be 

dismissed, namely, that the Commonwealth "is not a necessary 

party to [the] proceeding," its only connection to the case is 

to direct father's employer pursuant to Code § 20-79.1 to 

forward payments withheld from father's wages to DSS for 

disbursement and recordation. The statement of facts concludes 

with the following: 

That on motion of the Commonwealth, the 

Commonwealth was dismissed as a party to 

this proceeding by Order of this Court 

entered on March 21, 2002. Said order 

further dismissed [father's] appeal of the 

February 8, 2002, "Pay or Report Order" as 

this payment of the $900.00 purge amount 

rendered [father's] appeal as moot. 

- 5 -
DISCUSSION 

 The statement of facts fails to show that father raised 

before the trial court any of the issues or arguments contained 

in his opening brief. Neither does it indicate that the trial 

court made rulings on any such issues. 

 "No ruling of the trial court . . . will be considered as a 

basis for reversal unless the objection was stated together with 

the grounds therefor at the time of the ruling, except for good 

cause shown or to enable the Court of Appeals to attain the ends 

of justice." Rule 5A:18. "The burden is upon the appellant to 

provide us with a record which substantiates the claim of 

error." Jenkins v. Winchester Dep't of Soc. Servs., 12 Va. App. 

1178, 1185, 409 S.E.2d 16, 20 (1991) (citation omitted). 

 The record before us fails to show that father raised or 

preserved the issues he raised in his brief. Because father did 

not comply with the requirements of Rule 5A:18, we do not 

address the issues on appeal. Moreover, because the October 1, 

1999 order of support is valid and not subject to collateral 

attack, because Code § 16.1-278.16 authorizes trial courts to 

punish for contempt anyone who "has failed to perform or comply 

with" an order of support, and because the majority of the 

issues raised by father were addressed and found to be without 

merit in our July 31, 2001 decision for Record No. 0779-00-3, 

the record reflects no reason to invoke the good cause or ends 

of justice exceptions to Rule 5A:18. 

- 6 -
 Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial 

court. See Rule 5A:27. 

Affirmed. 

- 7 -