COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Willis and Bray 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

LORETTA ROBERTS 

v. Record No. 0303-95-3 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

 JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR. 

PHILIP NATHANIEL WILLIAMS FEBRUARY 13, 1996 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ROCKINGHAM COUNTY 

Porter R. Graves, Jr., Judge 

 R. Bruce Wiles, for appellant. 

 No brief or argument for appellee. 

 Loretta Roberts appeals the judgment of the trial court 

awarding custody of Tajon S. Williams to his biological father, 

Philip Nathaniel Williams. Ms. Roberts contends that the trial 

court erred (1) in concluding that Williams had not voluntarily 

relinquished custody of Tajon and (2) in finding that Tajon's 

best interests were served by awarding custody to Williams. We 

find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

 When addressing matters concerning a child . . . the 

paramount consideration of a trial court is the child's 

best interests. On review, "[a] trial court is 

presumed to have thoroughly weighed all the evidence, 

considered the statutory requirements, and made its 

determination based on the child's best interests." 

Furthermore, the evidence is viewed in the light most 

favorable to the prevailing party below and its 

evidence is afforded all reasonable inferences fairly 

deducible therefrom. "In matters of a child's welfare, 

trial courts are vested with broad discretion in making 

the decisions necessary to guard and to foster a 

child's best interests." The trial court's judgment, 

"when based on evidence heard ore tenus, will not be 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

disturbed on appeal unless plainly wrong or without 

evidence to support it." 

Logan v. Fairfax County, 13 Va App. 123, 128, 409 S.E.2d 460, 463 

(1991) (citations omitted). 

 "In custody disputes between a natural parent and a nonparent, the law presumes the best interest of the child will be 

served when in the custody of the natural parent." Mason v. 

Moon, 9 Va. App. 217, 220, 385 S.E.2d 242, 244 (1989). "To 

overcome the strong presumption favoring a parent, the non-parent 

must adduce by clear and convincing evidence that . . . the 

parents voluntarily relinquished custody." Id. "A voluntary 

relinquishment occurs when a parent willingly agrees or consents 

to having their child placed in the custody of a nonparent." Id.

at 222, 385 S.E.2d at 245. 

 Ms. Roberts bore the burden of proving by clear and 

convincing evidence that Williams voluntarily relinquished 

custody of Tajon. The trial court found the evidence 

insufficient to prove a voluntary relinquishment. We cannot say 

this determination was plainly wrong. 

 In May, 1991, Tajon's biological mother took him and left 

Williams. She placed Tajon with her first cousin, Ms. Roberts, 

while she stayed in a shelter. On May 31, 1991, Ms. Roberts was 

awarded temporary custody of Tajon by the juvenile and domestic 

relations court with the consent of the biological mother, but 

without notice to Williams. Williams first learned of this order 

in December, 1991. In April, 1992, he sought custody. An order 
- 3 - 

entered May 15, 1992, allowed Ms. Roberts to retain temporary 

custody of Tajon, but Williams specifically reserved his parental 

rights. 

 In December, 1992, and again in September, 1993, Williams 

sought custody of Tajon. He was awarded custody in November, 

1993. These circumstances clearly show the efforts that Williams 

made to gain custody of his son and support the trial court's 

ruling that Ms. Roberts failed to prove by clear and convincing 

evidence that Williams voluntarily relinquished custody of Tajon. 

 Ms. Roberts next contends that the trial court erred in 

finding that Tajon's best interests were served by awarding his 

custody to Williams. The trial court based its ruling on the 

statutory factors of Code § 20-124.3, the best interests of the 

child standard. Credible evidence supports the trial court's 

finding. The evidence disclosed that Williams can provide a 

stable and loving environment in which to raise Tajon, Williams 

and Tajon have a good relationship and enjoy spending time 

together, Williams and his wife have established jobs and can 

provide financially for Tajon, and Williams' wife supports his 

desire to have custody of Tajon. 

 "This case fits within the established rule that 'the parent 

prevails unless the non-parent bears the burden of proving, by 

clear and convincing evidence, both that the parent is unfit and 

that the best interest of the child will be promoted by granting 

custody to the non-parent.'" Elder v. Evans, 16 Va. App. 60, 67, 
- 4 - 

427 S.E.2d 745, 749 (1993). "[A] fit parent with a suitable home 

has a right to the custody of his child superior to the rights of 

others." Id. The evidence in this case clearly supports the 

trial court's finding that Tajon's best interests are served by 

his being in Williams' custody. 

 The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

 Affirmed.