COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Petty, Chafin and Senior Judge Annunziata 

WILLIAM R. JERNIGAN, JR. 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* 

v. Record No. 2158-13-3 PER CURIAM 

 JUNE 3, 2014 

STEVEN GOFF AND 

 ANGELA GOFF 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HENRY COUNTY 

Martin F. Clark, Jr., Judge 

 (Harold E. Slate, II, on brief), for appellant. Appellant submitting 

on brief.1

 (Kimberly R. Belongia; H. Clay Gravely, IV, Guardian ad litem for 

the minor child, on brief), for appellee. Appellee and Guardian 

ad litem submitting on brief. 

 William R. Jernigan, Jr. (father) appeals an order finding that he withheld his consent to the 

adoption of his child, contrary to the child’s best interests. Father argues that the circuit court 

“abused its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for a continuance and was thereby prejudiced 

by the resulting termination of his parental rights.” Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the 

parties, we conclude that the circuit court did not err. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the 

circuit court. 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 

1

 Appellant filed a pro se brief, which we will not consider since his attorney filed an 

opening brief on his behalf and appellant did not obtain leave of court to file the pro se brief. 

UNPUBLISHED 
 - 2 - 

BACKGROUND 

 Father and Brittany Jernigan (mother) are the biological parents of a child who was born in 

September 2010. Mother’s sister is Angela Goff. Angela Goff and her husband, Steven Goff, have 

had custody of the child since February 2011. 

 In March 2013, the Goffs started the process of adopting the child. Neither father nor 

mother would consent to the adoption. The Henry County Juvenile and Domestic Relations District 

Court (JDR court) found that mother and father were withholding their consent contrary to the best 

interests of the child and held that their consent to the child’s adoption was waived. Father appealed 

to the circuit court. 

 At the start of the hearing on October 17, 2013, father made a motion for a continuance 

because certain witnesses were not present. Father’s attorney told the circuit court that he spoke 

with “some of Mr. Jernigan’s proposed witnesses and determined they would not be helpful to his 

case.” The circuit court denied the continuance request and heard testimony from Angela Goff and 

a social worker. Then, father testified. At the time of the hearing, father was incarcerated with 

approximately five or six months remaining on his sentence for a probation violation due to illegal 

drug use. He is a convicted felon. Father testified that he has bipolar disorder, for which he is not 

being treated. Furthermore, father stated that he saw his child once in February 2011 and that he 

attempted to contact his child once via text message. Otherwise, he has not had contact with the 

child. He did not appear in the JDR court for a visitation hearing in July 2011. He has not paid 

child support to the Goffs. He admitted that at the time of the hearing, the best place for the child 

was with the Goffs; however, he did not want to “lose his rights to his son.” 

 After hearing all of the evidence and argument, the circuit court concluded that father’s 

consent to the adoption was being unreasonably withheld contrary to the best interests of the child 

and waived father’s consent to the adoption. This appeal followed. 
 - 3 - 

ANALYSIS 

 Father argues that the circuit court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a 

continuance and that he was prejudiced as a result. Father told the circuit court that he needed to 

subpoena his witnesses to court. Father’s counsel told the circuit court that he interviewed 

“potential witnesses at [father’s] request, but found no strategical value to calling said witnesses at 

trial.” The circuit court denied the continuance request. 

The decision to grant a motion for a continuance is within the 

sound discretion of the circuit court and must be considered in 

view of the circumstances unique to each case. The circuit court’s 

ruling on a motion for a continuance will be rejected on appeal 

only upon a showing of abuse of discretion and resulting prejudice 

to the movant. 

Haugen v. Shenandoah Valley Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 274 Va. 27, 34, 645 S.E.2d 261, 265 (2007). 

 Father has not proven that he was prejudiced as a result of the trial court’s denial of his 

motion for a continuance. He did not indicate who his witnesses were nor did he proffer the 

witnesses’ testimony. However, father’s counsel told the circuit court that the witnesses would not 

have been “helpful” to his case. This Court needs to be “able to examine the content of the 

witness’ expected testimony to determine whether the defendant had suffered prejudice as a 

result of the denial of his continuance request.” Lowery v. Commonwealth, 9 Va. App. 304, 307, 

387 S.E.2d 508, 510 (1990); see also Gray v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 513, 517, 431 S.E.2d 

86, 89 (1993). “We cannot reverse if a defendant ‘has shown no prejudice resulting from what he 

claims was an abuse of discretion’ in granting or denying a continuance motion.” Bolden v. 

Commonwealth, 49 Va. App. 285, 290, 640 S.E.2d 526, 529 (2007) (quoting Quintana v. 

Commonwealth, 224 Va. 127, 135, 295 S.E.2d 643, 646 (1982)). 

CONCLUSION 

 For the foregoing reasons, the trial court’s ruling is affirmed. 

Affirmed.