COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges O’Brien, Malveaux and Senior Judge Frank

RADHWAN AL-HAMOOD

MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1192-20-3 PER CURIAM

MARCH 23, 2021

MUROOJ R. AL SADOON

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ROCKINGHAM COUNTY

Thomas J. Wilson, IV, Judge

(Stephen R. Sofinski, on brief), for appellant. Appellant submitting 

on brief.

No brief for appellee.

Radhwan Al-Hamood (father) appeals a custody and visitation order. Father argues that the 

circuit court erred by “failing to order any visitation rights to [him] because the evidence did not 

substantially show that it was not in the children’s best interest to have contact with their father.” 

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.

BACKGROUND1

“On appeal, we view the evidence ‘in the light most favorable to the prevailing party 

below and its evidence is afforded all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom.’” Bedell 

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

1 The record in this case was sealed. Nevertheless, the appeal necessitates unsealing 

relevant portions of the record to resolve the issues appellant has raised. Evidence and factual 

findings below that are necessary to address the assignments of error are included in this opinion. 

Consequently, “[t]o the extent that this opinion mentions facts found in the sealed record, we 

unseal only those specific facts, finding them relevant to the decision in this case. The remainder 

of the previously sealed record remains sealed.” Levick v. MacDougall, 294 Va. 283, 288 n.1 

(2017).

UNPUBLISHED 
- 2 -

v. Price, 70 Va. App. 497, 500-01 (2019) (quoting Bristol Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Welch, 64 

Va. App. 34, 40 (2014)).

Father and Murooj R. Al Sadoon (mother) married in Iraq in 2006. Mother and father are 

the biological parents to four children, born between 2007 and 2011. In 2013, the family moved 

to North Carolina. Father subjected mother and the children to family abuse, which ultimately 

led to his arrest in December 2016. In January 2018, father was convicted of “a felony for 

injuries inflicted on mother” and sentenced to fifty years in prison.

On November 19, 2019, father filed petitions for a determination of custody and 

visitation for each child. On March 2, 2020, the Rockingham/Harrisonburg Juvenile and 

Domestic Relations District Court (the JDR court) awarded sole legal and physical custody of the 

children to mother and awarded no visitation to father. The JDR court also prohibited father 

from contacting the children or mother. Father appealed to the circuit court.

On September 22, 2020, the parties appeared before the circuit court. Mother and the 

parties’ oldest son testified about “the prior abusive behavior.” The oldest son also testified that 

father committed “acts of violence” against himself, mother, and the other children. Neither 

mother nor the oldest son wanted any contact with father and his extended family. Two of the 

children were in counseling. Although there was evidence at the criminal trial two years earlier 

that the parties’ children “missed” father, none of the children wanted to have contact with father 

at the time of the circuit court hearing. Mother, however, testified that she would allow the 

children to contact father “if and when” they felt comfortable and wanted to contact him.2 

Mother expressed concern about the children’s well-being, especially because of the trauma they 

experienced.

2 The circuit court found that “one child ha[d] some ambivalence about future contact” 

with father.
- 3 -

Father testified that he was “a good father” and left Iraq to protect his family. Father 

testified that before his incarceration, he had helped the children “with computers, homework, 

provided a ‘beautiful’ birthday party at school for one, provided a ‘toy room’ for the children, 

and swears that his children will love him ‘until death’ and that ‘anyone who speaks words 

against him to his children will be punished by God.’” Father explained that he wanted “to be 

deeply involved” with the children and also wanted his extended family to be a part of their lives.

After hearing the evidence and argument, the circuit court took the matter under 

advisement. On September 24, 2020, the circuit court issued a letter opinion, finding that mother 

was “in touch with the trauma and emotional damage done” to the children, while father was 

“out of touch in this regard and his wishes for custody [were] not rational.” The circuit court 

awarded legal and physical custody of the children to mother. The circuit court ordered that 

father may not contact the children “unless he is first contacted by them or . . . mother.” The 

circuit court further ordered that father could not have his extended family contact mother or the 

children. The circuit court entered an order memorializing its rulings. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS

Father challenges the circuit court’s visitation ruling. “We begin our analysis by 

recognizing the well-established principle that all trial court rulings come to an appellate court 

with a presumption of correctness.” Wynnycky v. Kozel, 71 Va. App. 177, 192 (2019) (quoting 

Stiles v. Stiles, 48 Va. App. 449, 453 (2006)). “In matters of custody, visitation, and related 

child care issues, the court’s paramount concern is always the best interests of the child.” Id. at 

193 (quoting Bedell, 70 Va. App. at 504). “A trial court’s determination with regard to [custody 

and] visitation is reversible only upon a showing that the court abused its discretion.” Id.

(quoting Bedell, 70 Va. App. at 504).
- 4 -

Father argues that the circuit court erred in finding that it was in the children’s best 

interests not to have any contact with him. Father emphasizes that he wanted to be involved in 

the children’s lives and that he and his relatives “should be allowed to maintain the relationship 

with the children that ha[d] been established since the years they all lived together in Iraq.”

“In determining the best interests of a child for purposes of custody or visitation, the 

Code mandates that the circuit court shall consider ten enumerated factors.” Rubino v. Rubino, 

64 Va. App. 256, 263 (2015) (citing Code § 20-124.3). A court “is not required to quantify or 

elaborate exactly what weight or consideration it has given to each of the statutory factors.” 

Sargent v. Sargent, 20 Va. App. 694, 702 (1995) (quoting Woolley v. Woolley, 3 Va. App. 337, 

345 (1986)); see also Armstrong v. Armstrong, 71 Va. App. 97, 104-05 (2019). “Where the 

record contains credible evidence in support of the findings made by [the] court, we may not 

retry the facts or substitute our view of the facts for [that] of the trial court.” Armstrong, 71 

Va. App. at 105 (quoting Bedell, 70 Va. App. at 504).

The circuit court’s letter opinion included its findings on the statutory factors. The circuit 

court found that father “subjected [mother] and [their] children to family abuse,” which 

ultimately led to his conviction for “a crime of violence against . . . mother” and a fifty-year 

prison sentence. In addition, the circuit court found that mother was the parent who was “most 

concerned” about the children’s emotional wellbeing and that father was “out of touch” with the 

trauma and emotional damage he caused the children. The circuit court specifically found that it 

was in the children’s best interests for mother to be awarded sole custody and for father and his 

extended family not to have any contact with them unless mother or the children contacted him 

first. “Because the record contains evidence in support of the [circuit] court’s findings, we are 

precluded from retrying the facts or reweighing the factors.” Id. The circuit court did not abuse 
- 5 -

its discretion in finding that it was in the children’s best interests to award custody to mother and 

deny visitation to father.

CONCLUSION

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

Affirmed.