COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Chief Judge Felton, Judges Humphreys and Beales
HEATHER HORTON CROSSMAN
Record No. 0632-08-2
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
AUGUST 5, 2008
SOCIAL SERVICES DISTRICT
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
James V. Lane, Judge
(Heather Horton Crossman, pro se, on brief).
(Kim Van Horn Gutterman, Assistant County Attorney; Danita S.
Alt, Guardian ad litem for the infant child, on brief), for appellee.
Heather Horton Crossman (appellant) appeals the trial court’s decision dismissing her
petition for visitation of the child due to the fact that the child is over the age of eighteen years
old. On appeal, appellant asserts that the court erred in dismissing her petition. Appellee
contends that appellant’s appeal should be dismissed because she (1) failed to perfect her appeal,
(2) failed to preserve her objection to the court’s ruling, and (3) requests relief that the court
cannot grant. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is
without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rule
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
Appellant is a third party who filed for visitation of three children in the Harrisonburg
Rockingham County Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court. 1 On November 3, 2006,
that court denied appellant’s request for visitation because there was no valid address for the
mother of the children. Appellant timely filed her appeal notice to the circuit court. The notice
reflects multiple case numbers, but only the oldest child is listed as a party. At the top of the
notice, appellant wrote “primarily [T.G.]” 2 (the oldest child).
The circuit court scheduled the matter to be heard on December 10, 2007. Appellant
alleges that the circuit court did not hear any evidence on that day and heard only from
appellee’s attorney. T.G.’s birthday is October 31, 1989. At the time of the hearing, she was
eighteen years old. Since T.G. was eighteen years old, the circuit court held that it did not have
jurisdiction and dismissed the matter.
Appellant appeals the circuit court’s order.
Appellant argues that she did not have a chance to be heard on her motion. The trial court
dismissed her appeal due to the fact that the child in question was eighteen years old and it no
longer had jurisdiction over the child. A child is a person who is less than eighteen years old. See
Code § 1-207. A juvenile and domestic relations district court and a circuit court can determine
custody and visitation of children. See Code §§ 16.1-241(A)(3) and 20-124.3. The courts do not
have jurisdiction to determine visitation arrangements for a person who is eighteen years old;
therefore, appellant’s motion was moot. See United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S.
388, 396 (1980) (holding that “mootness has two aspects: ‘when the issues presented are no
The record only includes the initial petition for visitation for the oldest child.
We will use initials to refer to the child.
longer “live” or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome’” (quoting Powell v.
McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969))). Therefore, the circuit court properly dismissed the
matter regarding visitation of T.G.
Appellant argues on appeal that the trial court erred in only hearing the visitation matter
regarding T.G. because appellant initially filed for visitation of three children in the lower court.3
The record reflects that the circuit court had only the visitation issue of T.G. before it. An appellant
has the responsibility to provide a complete record to the appellate court. Twardy v. Twardy, 14
Va. App. 651, 658, 419 S.E.2d 848, 852 (1992). Therefore, this Court will not consider
appellant’s argument that her appeal to the circuit court was related to all three children.
The record supports the circuit court’s finding that it did not have jurisdiction over the
child for visitation matters. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the judgment. See Rule 5A:27.
No transcript or statement of facts was filed; therefore, this Court does not know whether
appellant’s arguments were preserved at the trial level.