Opinion ID: 1363406
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Limitation of Witnesses.

Text: Stephen contends that Code | 16.1-113 [1] governs the circuit court proceedings and requires the court to hear all evidence produced irrespective of whether the court from which the appeal was taken heard it. However, Stephen has misapplied Code | 16.1-113, which falls within Chapter 6 of Title 16.1. This appeal arose under the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court Law. Code || 16.1-226, et seq. (Acts 1977, c. 559). Code | 16.1-296 provides in pertinent part: From 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 in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 7 (| 16.1-123 et seq.) of Title 16.1.... Proceedings in the circuit court shall conform to the equity practice where evidence is heard ore tenus;.... [Emphasis added.] In all cases on appeal, the circuit court in the disposition of such cases shall have all the powers and authority granted by the chapter to the juvenile and domestic relations district court. We look to Chapter 7, not 6, as Stephen has suggested. Accord, Walker Dept. of Public Welfare, 223 Va. 557, 290 S.E.2d 887 (1982). Code | 16.1-136 provides that any appeal taken under the provisions of this chapter [7] shall be heard de novo in the appellate court and shll be tried without formal pleadings in writing.... The issue, then, is whether the court denied Stephen a full and adequate hearing on his appeal. At the conclusion of the first day of the June hearing, Marilyn's counsel called Dr. Palladino, Marilyn's treating psychiatrist. Counsel discovered that Palladino was unavailable and tendered a transcript of his prior testimony before the juvenile court. Stephen's counsel agreed to this on condition that he be able to call his experts, Dr. Riddle and Dr. Pepper, as rebuttal witnesses. The court replied that if any issues remained open after reading Palladino's transcript, then both experts could address them. After reading Dr. Palladino's transcript, the court stated: I do not think that I need any further evidence in this case and am prepared to rule on it subject to your comments. I would like to give you an opportunity to argue it. If there are other witnesses that you have standing by that you consider would have some crucial testimony to offer, you may, in your arguments, give me a proffer on what they would say. If it turns out that that would be crucial to the determination of the case, I will hear them. But, I would assume, from your indications to me when the trial began, that they fall generally into categories of people who would respectively support the good qualities of each of these people as parents. Undoubtedly, co-workers and friends have been brought here for the purposes of saying that for whom they testify is a good parent. Or, perhaps, to testify to some specific episode of bad behavior on the other side, and I am quite prepared to believe that. After a short recess to enable counsel to prepare final summations, each attorney addressed the court at great length as to the merits of his client's cause. Stephen's attorney attacked the validity of Dr. Palladino's diagnosis, criticizing the procedures used by him and the inadequacy of his interviews. He described the specifics of the reports and evidence of Drs. Pepper and Riddle, and alleged the exact relevancy, in his opinion, of the potential testimony of the private investigators. The argument of Stephen's counsel covers 34 appendix pages, that of Marilyn's counsel 16 pages, and the rebuttal 10 pages. At the conclusion of the summations the court congratulated counsel for the thorough preparation and presentation of their respective cases. The court did not attempt to foreclose any legitimate inquiry, but tried to avoid cumulative testimony, and, as conceded by Stephen's counsel in oral argument before this court, it had the power to do so. If either advocate felt that essential testimonial evidence was not before the court or in the record, then counsel should have communicated that fact to the court before the arguments began or, at the very latest, before the court made its oral decision from the bench. It was imperative that each advocate apprise the court of any vital evidence that might have been omitted and not speculate upon the outcome of the case.