Eugenio Hernandez v. Dana Lynn Pao

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judges Benton, Humphreys and Senior Judge Overton
EUGENIO HERNANDEZ
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. 	Record Nos. 1017-04-4 and 	PER CURIAM
1018-04-4 	OCTOBER 5, 2004
DANA LYNN PAO
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA
Alfred D. Swersky, Judge Designate
(Gwen Anne Carpenter; Law Offices of Brian J. Moran, on brief),
for appellant.
(Douglas A. Steinberg, on brief), for appellee.
Eugenio Hernandez appeals from the circuit court’s dismissal of his appeals from orders
entered by a judge of the juvenile and domestic relations district court in proceedings involving
child support and visitation. Hernandez contends the trial judge erred by (1) dismissing his appeals
on the basis that he “voluntarily refused to present any evidence causing the [juvenile] court to
dismiss his petitions before trial,” and (2) “determining that [his] right to be represented by counsel
[in the juvenile court] was moot.” Upon reviewing the record and briefs, we conclude that these
appeals are without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decisions of the trial court. See
Rule 5A:27.
Background
On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to appellee as the party
prevailing below and grant to the evidence all reasonable inferences. See McGuire v. McGuire,
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.

- 2 -
10 Va. App. 248, 250, 391 S.E.2d 344, 346 (1990). So viewed, the record establishes that the
husband filed in the juvenile court a motion to modify his child support obligation based upon
changed circumstances. Several months later, husband filed a motion seeking to modify his
visitation schedule. After filing these motions, husband’s counsel moved to withdraw as counsel in
both cases. Over husband’s objection, the juvenile court judge granted counsel’s request.
At the juvenile court hearing that was convened to consider husband’s motions to modify
child support and visitation, husband was present but did not present evidence; he relied on his
pleadings. The juvenile court judge denied both motions. Husband then appealed from these orders
to the circuit court. The circuit court granted wife’s motion to dismiss the cases. The order, which
dismissed the support and visitation appeals, remanded the cases to the juvenile court “for future
proceedings.” The husband endorsed the order “Seen.” The order, which dismissed husband’s
appeal of the order permitting his counsel to withdraw, ruled that the matter was moot.
Support and Visitation Appeals
Husband endorsed the circuit court’s order, which dismissed the support and visitation
appeals, “Seen,” and he struck through the words “and Objected to.” Instead of particularizing
the basis for his objections, husband wrote the following on the order: “Mr. Hernandez could not
state any objection as he is not representing himself in this matter (pro se) until CH No.
04001210 is justly determined by the honorable Court of Appeals of Virginia.” The record does
not indicate the basis for husband’s objection to the order.
Rule 5A:18 provides that “[n]o ruling of the trial court . . . will be considered as a basis
for reversal unless the objection was stated together with the grounds therefor at the time of the
ruling, except for good cause shown or to enable the Court of Appeals to attain the ends of
justice.” Applying this rule, we have held that, “[o]rdinarily, endorsement of an order ‘Seen and
objected to’ is not specific enough to meet the requirements of Rule 5A:18 because it does not

- 3 -
sufficiently alert the trial court to the claimed error.” Herring v. Herring, 33 Va. App. 281, 286,
532 S.E.2d 923, 926 (2000). In this case, husband endorsed the order as “Seen” and appended to
the endorsement a statement, which included no specific objections. In so doing, he failed to
preserve any issue for appeal. Rule 5A:18, therefore, bars our consideration of husband’s
arguments on appeal. Moreover, the record does not reflect any reason to invoke the good cause
or ends of justice exceptions to Rule 5A:18.
Appeal of Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw
The circuit court judge also dismissed husband’s appeal of the juvenile court’s order that
granted husband’s counsel’s motion to withdraw; he found the issue moot.
In his brief husband argues that the circuit “court dismissed the appeal on the basis that
the matter was moot due to the dismissal of [his] appeal of the custody/visitation and support
matters.” He reasons that because “the court’s dismissal of the underlying cases was improper,
the decision regarding [husband’s] representation by counsel was not moot.” Simply put,
husband’s challenge to the circuit court’s dismissal of his appeal is necessarily premised upon
error in the circuit court’s dismissal of the underlying cases. As we have held above, we cannot
address the underlying issue because husband failed to preserve for appeal any issue concerning
support and visitation.
For these reasons, we summarily affirm the decisions of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27.
Affirmed.