Mario Buchanan v. Whitney Vukmanic

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Elder, Beales and Senior Judge Annunziata

MARIO BUCHANAN
MEMORANDUM OPINION"
V. Record No. 1343-09-4 PER CURIAM
DECEMBER 8, 2009
WHITNEY VUKMANIC

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY
J. Howe Brown, Jr., Judge Designate

(Neal David Olesker, on brief), for appellant. Appellant submitting
on brief.

No brief for appellee.

Mario Buchanan appeals the tial court’s ruling denying his petitions for genetic testing and
visitation. Appellant argues that the tial court ered in dismissing his petitions and “deciding the
case incorrectly by abusing its discretion and reaching a decision that is plainly wrong.” Upon
reviewing the record and opening brief, we affirm the decision of the tial court.

BACKGROUND

On February 15, 2005, appellee gave birth to her daughter. Appellant and appellee were
involved in an intimate relationship in 2004. Appellant alleged that their relationship began on or
about May 1, 2004; however, appellee alleged that their relationship ended in A pril 2004.

In 2008, appellant filed a petition for genetic testing and a petition for visitation nights.
Appellant argued that he was the child’ s father.

The tial court relied on appellee's testimony and denied appellant’ s petitions. Appellant

timely noted his appeal.

” Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.

- 2 -
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his petitions for genetic testing and
visitation. Appellant contends it is in the child’s best interests to have the paternity test to
determine whether appellant is the father.
“As long as evidence in the record supports the trial court’s ruling and the trial court has
not abused its discretion, its ruling must be affirmed on appeal.” Brown v. Brown, 30 Va. App.
532, 538, 518 S.E.2d 336, 338 (1999). “Where the record contains credible evidence in support
of the findings made by that court, we may not retry the facts or substitute our view of the facts
for those of the trial court.” Ferguson v. Stafford County Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 14 Va. App. 333,
336, 417 S.E.2d 1, 2 (1992).
Appellee testified that her relationship with appellant ended in April 2004. She also
testified that the child was born prematurely and that the child’s father is in the military. Her
testimony contradicted appellant’s testimony, when he stated that their relationship began in May
2004.
“It is well established that the trier of fact ascertains a witness’ credibility, determines the
weight to be given to their testimony, and has the discretion to accept or reject any of the
witness’ testimony.” Street v. Street, 25 Va. App. 380, 387, 488 S.E.2d 665, 668 (1997) (en
banc).
Here, the trial court found appellee’s testimony more credible and determined that the child
was born almost ten months after appellee and appellant ended their relationship. Credible evidence
supports the trial court’s ruling. Accordingly, we cannot say that the trial court abused its
discretion.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the tial court’s ruling is affirmed.

Affirmed.