COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis 

FANNIE ESTELLE GREEN and 

 JAMES ROGER GREEN 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1281-97-4 PER CURIAM 

 JANUARY 20, 1998 

STEVEN MORGAN 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY 

Robert W. Woolridge, Judge 

 (John E. Carter, on brief), for appellants. 

 (Lisette Pedre Mestre; Legal Services of 

Northern Virginia, on brief), for appellee. 

 Fannie Estelle Green and James Roger Green (hereinafter the 

Greens) contend the circuit court erred in holding that it lacked 

jurisdiction to hear their appeal from a ruling of the juvenile 

and domestic relations district court. The Greens contend the 

trial court erred by (1) ruling that the order of the district 

court, which assumed jurisdiction over the cause, was not a final 

order appealable to the circuit court under Code § 16.1-296(A); 

(2) ruling that the district court's order was not an 

interlocutory order adjudicating the principles of a cause; and 

(3) finding no violation of due process in the statutory scheme 

under which a party may appeal a district court's decision.1

 

 

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

designated for publication. 

 1Morgan contends that by endorsing the circuit court's 

decree "Seen and Objected To," the Greens failed to preserve 

their objections for appeal. The record demonstrates that the 

Greens raised the arguments in their response to Morgan's motion 

to dismiss. Therefore, we find that these issues were raised 
- 2 - 

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. 

 I. 

 This proceeding involves a dispute over the custody of three 

infants. Ms. Green is the maternal grandmother, and Mr. Green is 

the maternal step-grandfather of the infants. Steven Morgan is 

the biological father of one and claims to be the biological 

father of another. The children's mother is now deceased. 

 II. 

 "The jurisdiction, practice, and procedure of the juvenile 

and domestic relations district courts are entirely statutory, 

and are set forth in Chapter 11 of Title 16.1 of the Code." 

Walker v. Department of Pub. Welfare, 223 Va. 557, 562, 290 

S.E.2d 887, 890 (1982). The Code specifically provides that 

"[f]rom any final order or judgment of the juvenile court 

affecting the rights or interests of any person coming within its 

jurisdiction, an appeal may be taken within ten days from the 

entry of a final judgment, order or conviction." Code 

§ 16.1-296(A). Thus, only final orders entered by the juvenile 

and domestic relations district court are appealable. Walker, 

223 Va. at 562, 290 S.E.2d at 890. 

 "A final order is one that disposes of the whole subject, 

 

before the trial court and were preserved for appeal. Cf. Lee v. 

Lee, 12 Va. App. 512, 404 S.E.2d 736 (1991). 
- 3 - 

gives all the relief contemplated, and leaves nothing to be done 

in the cause save to superintend ministerially compliance with 

the order." Alexander v. Morgan, 19 Va. App. 538, 540, 452 

S.E.2d 370, 371 (1995). The district court's order asserting 

jurisdiction over this dispute was interlocutory and did not 

dispose of the whole matter.2 Therefore, it was not a final 

order. Thus, the trial court did not err in finding that the 

order was not appealable. 

 III. 

 Under Code § 16.1-296(A), only final orders of the juvenile 

and domestic relations district court may be appealed to the 

circuit court for a trial de novo. The Greens do not identify 

any statute that allows appeals to the circuit court from 

interlocutory orders of the district courts. The cases cited by 

the Greens involved appeals where a statute granted specific 

authority to appeal from an interlocutory order of the circuit 

court. See, e.g., Pinkard v. Pinkard, 12 Va. App. 848, 407 

S.E.2d 339 (1991). That statute and those cases are not 

applicable or controlling of this issue. 

 IV. 

 Finally, the Greens contend the application of standards to 

 

 2The pertinent part of the district court's order provided: 

 "Temporary custody shall remain with the children's grandparents 

in North Carolina pending a full custody hearing by this court. 

Father and paternal grandparents are granted the right of 

reasonable visitation until the custody hearing. Continued to 

May 29, 1997 for a full custody hearing." 
- 4 - 

appeals from district courts to circuit courts, which are 

different than those standards applied to appeals from circuit 

courts to this Court or to the Supreme Court, violates due 

process. This contention is without merit. "'"[D]ue process," 

unlike some legal rules, is not a technical conception with a 

fixed content unrelated to time, place and circumstances.' 

'[D]ue process is flexible and calls for such procedural 

protections as the particular situation demands.'" Mathews v. 

Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334 (1976) (citations omitted). 

 District courts are courts not of record. When district 

court decisions are appealed to a circuit court, the matter is 

heard de novo without any presumption of correctness attaching to 

the district court's decision. 

 We have repeatedly held that an appeal to the 

circuit court from a court not of record 

under Code § 16.1-136 annuls the judgment of 

the inferior tribunal as completely as if 

there had been no previous trial . . . , and 

that such a trial de novo in the circuit 

court grants to a litigant every advantage 

which would have been his had the case been 

tried originally in such court. 

Walker, 223 Va. at 563, 290 S.E.2d at 890 (citation omitted). 

 In contrast, decisions of the circuit courts, which are 

courts of record, are presumed to be correct, and an appellant 

bears the burden to prove reversible error by record proof. In 

light of the opportunity to have the matter heard de novo in the 

circuit court, the Greens have not demonstrated that they were 

denied due process by the statutory requirement that they await 
- 5 - 

entry of the district court's final order before seeking an 

appeal. 
- 6 - 

 Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily 

affirmed. 

 Affirmed.