Louvenia Wooten vJohnathan O'N.Eley&Lillian Brown

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judges Willis, Lemons and Frank
Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia
LOUVENIA WOOTEN
MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
v. 	Record No. 0472-99-1 	JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR.
JANUARY 27, 2000
JOHNATHAN O'NEAL ELEY
AND LILLIAN BROWN
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF HAMPTON
Walter J. Ford, Judge
Rodney Sager (Kenneth Hardt, Sager & Hardt,
P.C., on brief), for appellant.
John F. Rixey for appellee Johnathan O'Neal
Eley.
No brief or argument for appellee Lillian
Brown.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code
§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.
On appeal from the judgment of the trial court awarding
custody of Brandon Brown to his father, Johnathan O'Neal Eley,
Louvenia Wooten contends that the trial court erred by failing
to consider evidence showing Eley to be an unfit parent.
Janice Brown, Brandon's mother and custodian from his
birth, died of medical complications on July 13, 1996, when
Brandon was seven years old. 	No father was ever listed on
Brandon's birth certificate.

Brandon's maternal grandmother, Louvenia Wooten, Janice
Brown's cousin, Lillian Brown (Brown), and Brandon's father,
Johnathan Eley, all sought Brandon's custody. 	On January 3,
1997, the juvenile and domestic relations district court awarded
temporary custody to Brown, granting Wooten and Eley visitation
rights. 	Both Eley and Wooten appealed. 	On January 26, 1999,
the trial court granted Brandon's custody to Eley. 	Wooten has
appealed that decision.
Contending that the trial court erred in granting custody
of Brandon to Eley, Wooten asserts that it was
reversible error to award custody of a minor
9 year old child to a part time father who
is guilty of both long term and ongoing
"anti-social, immoral and illegal conduct,"
which includes, but is not limited to the
following:
1. 	Ongoing scheme to defraud the
internal revenue service.
2. 	Deceiving social services.
3. 	Associating with known drug
dealers.
4. 	Lying to the court's social worker.
5. 	Lying to the juvenile court to
avoid child support by denying paternity.
6. 	Unstable address history.
7. 	Refusal to pay voluntary child
support for 7 years.
8. 	Abandonment of infant child.
Wooten's assignment of error is analogous to a sufficiency
of the evidence question. 	Wooten asks us to retry the custody
issue on its merits. 	We will not do so. 	The trial court heard
the evidence relating to Eley's fitness as a parent, found him
- 2 -

fit, and determined that Brandon was a happy, well-adjusted
child. 	Credible evidence in the record supports this finding.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
- 3 -