COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick 

PAMELA SUSETTE PARMER WATT 

v. Record No. 2448-95-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

WINSTON JEFFREY WATT MAY 7, 1996 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF 

FAIRFAX COUNTY 

M. Langhorne Keith, Judge 

 (John C. Maginnis, III, on brief), for 

appellant. 

 (Sandra L. Havrilak; Wendy J. Hahn; Hicks & 

Havrilak, on brief), for appellee. 

 Pamela Susette Parmer Watt (mother) appeals the decision of 

the circuit court modifying her visitation schedule with her 

daughter, Emily, who resides with Winston Jeffrey Watt (father). 

 On appeal, mother argues that the trial court erred in setting a 

visitation schedule which reduced the amount of mother's 

visitation without demonstrating that the reduction was in 

Emily's best interests. 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. 

 "In matters concerning custody and visitation, the welfare 

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

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

controlling consideration[s].'" Kogon v. Ulerick, 12 Va. App. 

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

trial court, in the interest of the children's welfare, may 

modify visitation rights of a parent based upon a change in 

circumstances." Fariss v. Tsapel, 3 Va. App. 439, 442, 350 

S.E.2d 670, 672 (1986). The trial court is vested with broad 

discretion to make the decisions necessary to safeguard and 

promote the child's best interests, and its decision will not be 

set aside unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. 

Farley v. Farley, 9 Va. App. 326, 327-28, 387 S.E.2d 794, 795 

(1990). 

 Mother filed a motion seeking custody of Emily, based upon 

father's denial of visitation. The trial court found that a 

material change of circumstances had occurred, but that a change 

in custody was not warranted. The court then considered 

modifications to mother's visitation schedule as submitted by 

both parties. Based upon testimony heard ore tenus, the trial 

court modified the previous visitation schedule. 

 Mother asserts that the trial court's modification of the 

visitation schedule substantially reduced her time with Emily.1

 

Assuming without deciding that her visitation was reduced, it is 

 

 1 Mother relocated to Florida in late June 1995. The 

hearing on the parties' respective custody motions was held 

August 16 and 17, 1995. Therefore, the parties had little 

experience implementing the provisions of the January 4, 1995 

consent decree governing visitation once mother moved to Florida. 

 
 3 

clear that the trial court set the new visitation schedule based 

upon the evidence of Emily's best interests. 

 The testimony of two separate mental health professionals 

established that it was in Emily's best interests to have short, 

frequent and consistent visits with mother. Dr. William B. 

Zuckerman testified that "[it's] the frequency and predictability 

that promote the relationship [between a parent and a child] more 

than . . . extended periods." Lynn E. Hahnemann, who had 

provided therapy for Emily, recommended "shorter, frequent 

visits," and opined that a visit to Florida for four consecutive 

weeks would be too long given Emily's age. 

 In its remarks from the bench, the court repeatedly 

expressed its concerns for Emily's best interests. The schedule 

set up by the court incorporated the recommendations made by the 

expert witnesses and the factors set forth in Code § 20-124.3. 

Credible evidence supports the conclusion of the court that there 

had been a material change in circumstances and that the modified 

visitation schedule was based upon Emily's best interests. 

 Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily 

affirmed. 

 Affirmed.