CUSTODY – MODIFICATION – CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR NOT – HAIRCUT INCIDENT – APPEALS – INCOMPLETE RECORD – DE NOVO APPEALS FROM JDR COURT – NEW-HEARING REQUIREMENT. When the appellant father in Rodgers v. Rodgers, unpublished, 23 VLW 407 (9/30/08) came in alleging that the trial court had no business changing custody from joint to sole custody with mother because there was no change of circumstances except his taking the son to get a haircut, the Court of Appeals unloaded on him saying essentially “Oh yeah? What about this?” And to prove that there was indeed more change of circumstances, there follows an impressive list of mere-conclusory horribles that sound suspiciously like getting the kid a haircut – after a viciously adversary advocate gets through with it, of course. In a brief discussion that makes one wonder whatever happened to the Virginia Rule that required “fact pleading,” we learn from the slip opinion that the court below in fact found that the father was guilty of “disruptive and destructive behaviors toward the child,” and “did not follow the prior orders relating to communications with mother, including notifying mother of significant issues,” and furthermore “made disparaging remarks about mother and ... put his needs before the child’s needs.” The pro se father also may have thought he had a pretty good issue to take to this Court of Appeals when he alleged that the circuit court below didn’t really afford him a de novo trial, but just rubber-stamped the decision of the juvenile court. Well he strikes out there as well, because the circuit court order, as quoted by the appellate court, said, “the Court does award sole custody of the child ... to the father. The Court makes this award for the same reasons as expressed by the [JDR Judge] ... in her order dated June 6, 2006. The Court adopts her reasoning by reference,” adding that “the Court did conduct a hearing ore tenus.” Well sure it’s a requirement that the circuit court hold a real de novo trial, the Court of Appeals says, but here there is no way to determine whether that requirement was met, because there would be no way to determine that question if there wasn’t a transcript “or summary” of the circuit court proceedings, so that issue can’t be considered.