Preview:

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Frank, Clements and Senior Judge Coleman Argued at Richmond, Virginia

SHIRLEY TRAVIS v. Record No. 1938-00-2 OPINION BY JUDGE ROBERT P. FRANK JULY 17, 2001

JOSEPH E. FINLEY, JR.

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY Timothy J. Hauler, Judge Robert D. Jacobs for appellant. S. Keith Barker (S. Keith Barker, P.C., on brief), for appellee.

Shirley Travis (mother) appeals the decision of the trial court dismissing her petition to modify custody and her petition for show cause against Joseph E. Finley, Jr. (father). On

appeal, she contends the trial court erred in dismissing her petitions for her failure to answer the discovery propounded by father because: 1) she asserted her Fifth Amendment privilege

against self-incrimination and 2) the discovery sought by father was not relevant to the proceeding. We agree that the trial

court erred in dismissing mother's petitions. I. BACKGROUND

On August 4, 1999, mother filed a petition to amend a previous custody order of July 6, 1999, in which father was

awarded custody. In support of her petition to amend, mother alleged a change in circumstance. The July 6, 1999 order 1 came on a remand from this Court after we reversed an earlier order that allowed mother to retain custody and remove the child to Ghana. On remand, the trial

court gave custody to father and set forth specific visitation. A number of other matters came before the trial court in addition to the petition to amend custody, including: 1)

father's motion to compel discovery of mother's income and whereabouts while she was under order not to leave the country; 2) father's motion to enforce various subpoenas duces tecum; 3) father's motion to establish visitation for mother; 4) father's motion to have the civil contempt fine reduced to judgment; 5) father's motion for attorney's fees and costs; 6) mother's petition to show cause against father for failure to pay child support, failure to allow visitation and other actions alleged to have violated previous orders. By order of June 30, 2000, the trial court ruled it would dismiss mother's petition to amend custody and her petition to show cause against father if mother did not answer the discovery requests within ten days. Mother failed to do so, and on July

14, 2000, the trial court dismissed mother's petition to amend

The trial court obtained jurisdiction to hear these matters from an appeal from the juvenile and domestic relations district court. - 2 -

1

custody because "the [mother] failed to answer the discovery in accordance with the court's order of June 30, 2000 . . . ." In

the same order, the trial court dismissed the petition to show cause against father for his alleged failure to pay child support. Mother then timely appealed the July 14, 2000 order by

her notice of appeal filed on August 9, 2000. On September 1, 2000, the trial court resolved the remaining issues: contempt, visitation, child support, health The

insurance, attorney's fees and sanctions against mother.

September 1, 2000 order recited that mother's petition to amend custody had been dismissed in the July 14, 2000 order. Father filed a motion to dismiss mother's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Father contends the July 14, 2000 order is "an

interim order" and that the September 1, 2000 order is the "final order." II. ANALYSIS

We first must determine whether the July 14, 2000 order is a "final order" or an interlocutory order that "adjudicates the principles of a cause." Pursuant to Code

Download 1938002.pdf

Virginia Law