Opinion ID: 1058642
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: question presented in the court of appeals

Text: The majority correctly recites from Rule 5:17(c) that [w]here an appeal is taken from a judgment of the Court of Appeals, only assignments of error relating to questions presented in, or to actions taken by, the Court of Appeals may be included in the petition for appeal to this Court. However, while referencing the Question Presented in the Court of Appeals, the majority opinion omits its actual language, which was: Whether the trial [court] erred by failing to require the presence of the parents for the hearing on termination of their parental rights. The issue addressed in the majority opinion, that the circuit court abused its discretion when it denied the non-existent motion for a continuance, is not an issue encompassed within the Question Presented, nor was it addressed by the Court of Appeals. The Question Presented contains no reference to a failure to grant a continuance, that the circuit court abused its discretion in that regard, or that there was resulting prejudice to Haugen. The primary reason for that deficiency is that the abuse of discretion argument upon which the majority opinion rests, was never made by Haugen or by any other party in any court at any time. Haugen's sole argument in the circuit court, the Court of Appeals, and this Court was that her due process rights were infringed because she was not present in person at the hearing. The Question Presented to the Court of Appeals cannot be retrofitted to cover an issue never raised and not within the plain terms of the actual text of the Question Presented. The Department of Social Services and the child's guardian ad litem never addressed Rule 5:17(c) in the context of the Question Presented in the Court of Appeals because that issue never appeared in this case until raised sua sponte in the majority opinion. A plain reading of the Question Presented reflects that the issue addressed by the majority  the abuse of discretion to the prejudice of Haugen by denial of a continuance  was not stated in the Question Presented to the Court of Appeals and not decided by that court. Haugen's appeal is thus barred by Rule 5:17(c). See, e.g., Townsend v. Commonwealth, 270 Va. 325, 330 n. 2, 619 S.E.2d 71, 74 n. 2 (2005) (An argument not made in the Court of Appeals or before this Court will not be considered by the Court on appeal under Rule 5:17(c)).