The Virginia Court of Appeals in Vechery v. Cottet-Moine (unpublished 4/4/17) upheld an order restricting the control, and physical presence, of an overly sports-minded and control-minded parent, giving the other parent sole legal/physical custody, and forcing a 10-year-old golf prodigy to take a one-year break from competition and to limit her golf play/practice time. The order had also said the father had to stay on the opposing team's sideline at gymnastics meets, and stay away from gymnastics practices.
The father had pushed for more golfing, and had tried to unilaterally forbid the mother from playing golf with the child, attending tournaments, or selecting instructors for her on her own time.
"Both mother and father testified that the child was a good golf player and enjoyed golf. Father presented evidence that the child was "phenomenal" at golf "for her age" and had "the potential to definitely make it on the LPGA [tour]." Father testified that the child played in nineteen golf tournaments the year prior to the hearing, and he would like for her to play in between twenty and twenty-five golf tournaments for the upcoming year. Father admitted that he was willing to take the child out of school, so that she could travel and play in a golf tournament.
. . .
"Eichelberger v. Eichelberger, 2 Va. App. 409, 412, 345 S.E.2d 10, 11 (1986) ...held that a court may restrict a child's activity with the non-custodial parent when "the activity presented a danger to the child or otherwise affected the child's welfare." Id. at 411, 345 S.E.2d at 11.
"The circuit court held that competitive golf affected the child's welfare. The judge explained, "It is too much stress and I just think maybe if we take that out of the equation, perhaps things will calm down a bit." Considering the facts of this case, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting the child from playing competitive golf for one year."
The trial court observed that the parents did not cooperate with each other, and exposure to that non-cooperation was bad for the child. And:
"The circuit court held that father disrupted the child's gymnastics practices. A witness testified that father would show up at gymnastics practice, interrupt the class, and pull the child out of practice. She would not return to the practice until mother told her to do so."
Other holdings:
After the trial, the father filed a motion to re-open the taking of evidence because the mother had been criminally charged with assaulting him at a soccer game. But he did not get the trial court to rule on his motion, so there was no ruling to appeal.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by limiting the trial to one day, which both sides had originally scheduled it for, even though another judge had opined that it would take two, and the father complained about having to trim his schedule of witnesses. The is a right to adequate time to present one's case, but the amount of time necessary cannot be defined by any precise rule, the Court says, citing Brown v. Peters, 202 Va. 382, 391, 117 S.E.2d 695, 700 (1961). Anyhow, here the father was given enough time to present his case, the Court says.
Refusing to speak with the child in Chambers was not error. The trial judge decided that she had heard enough evidence, including evidence of the child's perspective. And the father did not call the child as a witness:
"In M.E.D. v. J.P.M., 3 Va. App. 391, 404, 350 S.E.2d 215, 224 (1986), this Court held, "In the absence of any action to call the child as a witness, we believe the court did not err in declining to 'meet with' her in chambers." At the time the evidence was presented in this case, father did not call the child as a witness and agreed that the child did not need to be called. Consequently, the circuit court did not err ..."
Despite the mother's all-around triumph, the appeals court denied her request for an award of her fees and costs in defending the appeal.