COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Annunziata and Overton 

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia 

JAMES R. BOYLES 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 2160-96-1 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON 

 MAY 6, 1997 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA/ 

 DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH 

Jerome B. Friedman, Judge 

 Glenn R. Tankersley (Regency Legal Clinic, on 

briefs), for appellant. 

 Cheryl A. Wilkerson, Assistant Attorney 

General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney 

General; William H. Hurd, Deputy Attorney 

General; Siran S. Faulders, Senior Assistant 

Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. 

 The Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach upheld the 

Virginia Department of Social Services’ finding of Emotional 

Abuse, Level Three, by the appellant, James R. Boyles, against 

two of his children. Boyles appeals, claiming (1) that 

substantial evidence did not exist in the record to support the 

agency’s findings; (2) that the agency committed procedural 

errors; (3) that the trial court erred in not applying res

judicata; and (4) that the applicable statute is 

unconstitutionally vague. For the reasons stated, we affirm. 

 The parties are fully conversant with the record in the 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

cause, and because this memorandum opinion carries no 

precedential value, no recitation of the facts is necessary. 

 When a circuit court hears an appeal from an agency, "the 

scope of review is limited to ascertaining whether there was 

substantial evidence in the agency record to support the 

decision." Turner v. Jackson, 14 Va. App. 423, 429-30, 417 

S.E.2d 881, 886 (1992); see Code § 9-6.14:17. "The reviewing 

court may reject the agency's findings of fact only if, 

considering the record as a whole, a reasonable mind would 

necessarily come to a different conclusion." Johnston-Willis, 

Ltd. v. Kenley, 6 Va. App. 231, 242, 369 S.E.2d 1, 7 (1988). 

 Substantial evidence was present in the record before the 

circuit court to support the agency’s finding of Emotional Abuse, 

Level Three, for two of Boyles’ children. The evidence consisted 

of statements by the children during two separate interviews, the 

school counselor, and the professional opinion of the family 

therapist. These statements chronicled various acts by Boyles, 

all of which contributed to the emotional abuse inflicted upon 

his children. The specific behavior and their effect on the 

children have been well-documented in the local agency’s 

investigation, at the local agency’s conference, and at the state 

agency’s hearing. The parties are familiar with the facts, and 

we need address this issue no further except to restate that our 

review of the record reveals substantial evidence to support the 
- 3 - 

findings of the agency.1

 We decline to express an opinion on whether the agency 

failed to follow its procedures. Having found that the agency’s 

findings were supported by facts in the record, the trial court 

should have reversed the agency only if the procedural errors 

"infected the entire agency proceedings with unfair prejudice." 

State Bd. of Health v. Godfrey, 223 Va. 423, 436, 290 S.E.2d 875, 

882 (1982). An error in the initial collection of facts could 

have been remedied at later hearings, curing any prejudice to 

Boyles before a final determination was made by the agency. 

Because we cannot conclude that a different procedure at any 

level created an unfair prejudice to Boyles, errors made by the 

agency, if any, were harmless. 

 Boyles next argues that the trial court erred in declining 

to apply the principle of res judicata. His argument lacks any 

merit. The order cited was by a lower court than the circuit 

court, the juvenile and domestic relations district court did not 

rule that no abuse occurred, and that proceeding was on a 

 

 1Boyles also assigns error to the refusal of the trial court 

to consider evidence from a related suit in chancery. Boyles 

could have presented this evidence to the agency, but did not. 

The trial court was limited to reviewing the evidence in the 

agency record, and therefore correctly excluded any other 

evidence. 
- 4 - 

different issue between parties different than the ones in the 

instant case. The principle of res judicata has no place in this 

matter. 

 Finally, Boyles contends that the statute is 

unconstitutionally vague. Because he raises this issue for the 

first time on appeal, we will not consider it. See Rule 5A:18. 

 Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is affirmed. 

 Affirmed.