Court Opinion

ID: 9845594
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:24:50.535899+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:15.245642
License: Public Domain

*68Willis, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree that the trial court erred in failing to afford Elder the parental presumption. I agree also that the evidence did not show that Elder was, at the time of these proceedings, an unfit parent. However, I find the case inappropriate for final decision by this court. I think that we should remand it to the trial court for determination under the proper standard of proof.
“[T]he best interests of the child are paramount and form the lodestar for the guidance of the court in determining the dispute.” Bailes v. Sours, 231 Va. 96, 99, 340 S.E.2d 824, 826 (1986). In custody disputes between a natural parent and a non-parent, the law presumes that the best interests of the child will be served by parental custody. Id. at 100, 340 S.E.2d at 827.
Rebuttal of the parental presumption is not limited to a showing of parental unfitness. The court may consider other matters, including “special facts and circumstances [which] constitute extraordinary reasons to take the child from the parents.” Mason v. Moon, 9 Va. App. 217, 220, 385 S.E.2d 242, 244 (1989).
Both the juvenile and domestic relations district court judge and the judge of the circuit court found that the child’s best interests would be served by awarding custody to Ms. Evans. Their findings, though based upon an erroneous standard of proof, were based also upon observations of the parties and upon courtroom perceptions that we do not have before us. Wresting this young child from the only home that she has ever known and placing her in a strange, albeit loving, environment could strike her a severe and cruel blow. This is a decision that should be made by a trial judge on the scene, applying the proper standard of proof.