Devon Turner v. City of Hampton Department of Social Services
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Kelsey, Petty and Senior Judge Bumgardner DEVON TURNER v. Record No. 2605-11-1 MEMORANDUM OPINION * PER CURIAM JUNE 26, 2012 CITY OF HAMPTON DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF HAMPTON Wilford Taylor, Jr., Judge (Christina E. James; Kevin P. Shea & Associate, on brief), for appellant. Appellant submitting on brief. (Everett L. Bensten, Assistant City Attorney; Douglas J. Walter, Guardian ad litem for the minor children, on brief), for appellee. Appellee and Guardian ad litem submitting on brief. On November 30, 2011, the trial court entered a permanency planning order placing custody of the minor children of Devon Turner, mother, with the maternal grandparents of the children and terminating the custody rights of mother. On appeal, mother argues the trial court erred in transferring custody of the children. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the trial court. Mother did not comply with Rule 5A:20(e) because her opening brief does not contain any principles of law or citation to legal authorities to fully develop her argument that the trial court erred. Rule 5A:20(e) mandates that an appellant s opening brief shall contain the argument (including principles of law and authorities) relating to each assignment of error. Statements unsupported by argument, authority, or citations to the record do not permit appellate * Pursuant to Code ยง 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. consideration. Parks v. Parks, 52 Va. App. 663, 664, 666 S.E.2d 547, 548 (2008) (quoting Cirrito v. Cirrito, 44 Va. App. 287, 302 n.7, 605 S.E.2d 268, 275 n.7 (2004)). Mother has the burden of showing that reversible error was committed. See Lutes v. Alexander, 14 Va. App. 1075, 1077, 421 S.E.2d 857, 859 (1992). The Supreme Court has concluded that when a party s failure to strictly adhere to the requirements of Rule 5A:20(e) is significant, the Court of Appeals may . . . treat a question presented as waived. Parks, 52 Va. App. at 664, 666 S.E.2d at 548 (quoting Jay v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 510, 520, 659 S.E.2d 311, 317 (2008)). We find mother s failure to comply with Rule 5A:20(e) is significant, therefore, we will not consider her assignment of error. See Fadness v. Fadness, 52 Va. App. 833, 851, 667 S.E.2d 857, 866 (2008) ( If the parties believed that the circuit court erred, it was their duty to present that error to [the Court of Appeals] with legal authority to support their contention. ). For the foregoing reason, the trial court s ruling is affirmed. Affirmed. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
