COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Elder, Bumgardner and Senior Judge Baker 

KATHLEEN G. ROCKER 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0392-98-2 PER CURIAM 

 AUGUST 25, 1998 

TIMOTHY EARL BROWN 

AND 

ANNE MARIE TOLER BROWN 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND 

James B. Wilkinson, Judge 

 (Kathleen G. Rocker, pro se, on briefs). 

 (Rose McC. Alexander, on brief), for 

appellees. 

 Kathleen G. Rocker appeals the decision of the circuit court 

granting the petition filed by Timothy Earl Brown and Anne Marie 

Toler Brown to adopt Christina Marie Schutte. Ms. Rocker is the 

mother of Christina's birth father, Joel Rocker. On appeal, Ms. 

Rocker contends that the trial court erred by: (1) not applying 

the best interests of the child criteria as required by Code 

§§ 20-124.3 and 63.1-225.1; (2) failing to consider the 

relationship established between Kathleen Rocker and the child, 

contrary to the best interests of the child; (3) not first 

requiring the adoptive parents to petition for an interlocutory 

order of adoption as required pursuant to Code § 63.1-230 prior 

to granting the adoptive parents "leave to submit a final order 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
 -2- 

of adoption to the court"; (4) overriding the primacy of the 

parents to the care and custody of the child without first 

finding the birth father to be unfit; (5) determining that the 

birth father withheld his consent to the adoption contrary to the 

best interests of the child; and (6) failing to consider that the 

birth father's efforts to assert parental rights were thwarted by 

other people pursuant to Code § 63.1-225.1. In their brief, the 

Browns also raise as an issue whether Kathleen Rocker has 

standing to bring this appeal. 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. 

 Kathleen Rocker and her son objected to the petition to 

adopt filed by the Browns. They jointly filed a Memorandum in 

Support of Objection to Adoption. In that memorandum, the only 

issue argued was that the evidence did not support a finding that 

Joel Rocker withheld his consent contrary to the best interests 

of the child. The memorandum also indicated that Kathleen Rocker 

objected to the adoption because she had not received visitation 

as previously ordered. 

 The final order of adoption noted that "father excepts and 

objects for the reasons previously heard." However, no 

objections appear on the face of either the order which found 

that Joel Rocker withheld his consent to the adoption contrary to 

the best interest of the child or the final order of adoption. 
 -3- 

The Rockers did not file a motion to reconsider. No transcript 

or written statement of facts preserving objections made by 

either Joel Rocker or Kathleen Rocker is included in the record. 

 The Court of Appeals will not consider an argument on appeal 

which was not presented to the trial court. See Jacques v. 

Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 591, 593, 405 S.E.2d 630, 631 (1991) 

(citing Rule 5A:18). The record does not indicate that Issues 2, 

3, or 6 were raised before the trial court. The onus of 

providing a sufficient record on appeal falls upon Kathleen 

Rocker as the party seeking to reverse the circuit court's 

decision. See White v. Morano, 249 Va. 27, 30, 452 S.E.2d 856, 

858 (1995). "We cannot assume that appellant's objection and 

reasons were proffered but not made a part of the record. Rule 

5A:8 requires appellant to present a complete transcript for this 

Court to consider his or her issues on appeal." Lee v. Lee, 12 

Va. App. 512, 516, 404 S.E.2d 736, 738 (1991) (en banc). 

Accordingly, Rule 5A:18 bars our consideration of Issues 2, 3, 

and 6 on appeal. Moreover, the record does not reflect any 

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

Rule 5A:18. 

 The remaining Issues 1, 4, and 5 arguably were raised by the 

Memorandum in Support of Objection to Adoption when the birth 

father objected to the adoption of the child. See Code 

§ 63.1-225. However, Joel Rocker did not appeal the circuit 

court's order granting the adoption. Kathleen Rocker has no 
 -4- 

statutory authority to assert her son's arguments regarding the 

adoption. 

 "[I]t is well settled that 'in order to 

entitle any person to maintain an action in 

court it must be shown that he has a 

justiciable interest in the subject matter in 

litigation; either in his own right or in a 

representative capacity.'" 

Pearsall v. Virginia Racing Comm'n, 26 Va. App. 376, 381, 494 

S.E.2d 879, 882 (1998) (quoting Citizens for Clean Air v. 

Commonwealth ex rel. State Air Pollution Control Bd., 13 Va. App. 

430, 435, 412 S.E.2d 715, 718 (1991)). "An individual or entity 

does not acquire standing to sue in a representative capacity by 

asserting the rights of another, unless authorized by statute to 

do so." W.S. Carnes, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors, 252 Va. 377, 

383, 478 S.E.2d 295, 300 (1996). 

 This case is distinguishable from Thrift v. Baldwin, 23 Va. 

App. 18, 473 S.E.2d 715 (1996), in which we held that, following 

termination of parental rights and subsequent adoption, 

grandparents and siblings still retained standing to seek 

visitation as a "party with a legitimate interest" under Code 

§ 16.1-241(A)(6), despite the absence of any legal relationship. 

Id. at 20, 473 S.E.2d at 716. But the visitation rights which 

the parties were pursuing were their own. Kathleen Rocker may 

not assert as her own claims whatever arguments Joel Rocker could 

have raised on appeal. 

 In summary, we find no evidence that Issues 2, 3, and 6 were 

raised before the trial court or preserved for review on appeal. 
 -5- 

 We find that Kathleen Rocker lacks standing to raise on appeal 

Issues 1, 4, and 5 which challenge the trial court's finding that 

Joel Rocker withheld consent to the adoption of the child 

contrary to the best interests of the child. 

 Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily 

affirmed. 

Affirmed.