Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 20-124.2 (2026)

Court-ordered custody and visitation arrangements

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. In any case in which custody or visitation of minor children is at issue, whether in a circuit or district court, the court shall provide prompt adjudication, upon due consideration of all the facts, of custody and visitation arrangements, including support and maintenance for the children, prior to other considerations arising in the matter. The court may enter an order pending the suit as provided in § 20-103. The procedures for determining custody and visitation arrangements shall insofar as practical, and consistent with the ends of justice, preserve the dignity and resources of family members. Mediation shall be used as an alternative to litigation where appropriate. When mediation is used in custody and visitation matters, the goals may include development of a proposal addressing the child's residential schedule and care arrangements, and how disputes between the parents will be handled in the future.

B. In determining custody, the court shall give primary consideration to the best interests of the child. The court shall consider and may award joint legal, joint physical, or sole custody, and there shall be no presumption in favor of any form of custody. The court shall assure minor children of frequent and continuing contact with both parents, when appropriate, and encourage parents to share in the responsibilities of rearing their children. As between the parents, there shall be no presumption or inference of law in favor of either. The court shall give due regard to the primacy of the parent-child relationship but may upon a showing by clear and convincing evidence that the best interest of the child would be served thereby award custody or visitation to any other person with a legitimate interest. A person's legal possession or consumption of substances authorized under Title 4.1 or Chapter 34 (§ 54.1-3400 et seq.) of Title 54.1 alone shall not serve as a basis to restrict custody or visitation unless other facts establish that such possession or consumption is not in the best interest of the child.

B1. In any case or proceeding involving the custody or visitation of a child, as to a parent, the court may, in its discretion, use the phrase "parenting time" to be synonymous with the term "visitation."

B2. In any case or proceeding in which a grandparent has petitioned the court for visitation with a minor grandchild, and a natural or adoptive parent of the minor grandchild is deceased or incapacitated, the grandparent who is related to such deceased or incapacitated parent shall be permitted to introduce evidence of such parent's consent to visitation with the grandparent, in accordance with the rules of evidence. If the parent's consent is proven by a preponderance of the evidence, the court may then determine if grandparent visitation is in the best interest of the minor grandchild. For the purposes of this subsection, "incapacitated parent" has the same meaning ascribed to the term "incapacitated person" in § 64.2-2000.

C. The court may order that support be paid for any child of the parties. Upon request of either party, the court may order that such support payments be made to a special needs trust or an ABLE savings trust account as defined in § 23.1-700. The court shall also order that support will continue to be paid for any child over the age of 18 who is (i) a full-time high school student, (ii) not self-supporting, and (iii) living in the home of the party seeking or receiving child support until such child reaches the age of 19 or graduates from high school, whichever first occurs. The court may also order that support be paid or continue to be paid for any child over the age of 18 who is (a) severely and permanently mentally or physically disabled, and such disability existed prior to the child reaching the age of 18 or the age of 19 if the child met the requirements of clauses (i), (ii), and (iii); (b) unable to live independently and support himself; and (c) residing in the home of the parent seeking or receiving child support. In addition, the court may confirm a stipulation or agreement of the parties which extends a support obligation beyond when it would otherwise terminate as provided by law. The court shall have no authority to decree support of children payable by the estate of a deceased party. The court may make such further decree as it shall deem expedient concerning support of the minor children, including an order that either party or both parties provide health care coverage or cash medical support, or both.

D. In any case in which custody or visitation of minor children is at issue, whether in a circuit or district court, the court may order a custody evaluation or an independent mental health or psychological evaluation to assist the court in its determination of the best interests of the child. The court may enter such order as it deems appropriate for the payment of the costs of the evaluation by the parties.

E. The court shall have the continuing authority and jurisdiction to make any additional orders necessary to effectuate and enforce any order entered pursuant to this section or § 20-103 including the authority to punish as contempt of court any willful failure of a party to comply with the provisions of the order. A parent or other person having legal custody of a child may petition the court to enjoin and the court may enter an order to enjoin a parent of the child from filing a petition relating to custody and visitation of that child for any period of time up to 10 years if doing so is in the best interests of the child and such parent has been convicted of an offense under the laws of the Commonwealth or a substantially similar law of another state, the United States, or any foreign jurisdiction which constitutes (i) murder or voluntary manslaughter, or a felony attempt, conspiracy or solicitation to commit any such offense, if the victim of the offense was a child of the parent, a child with whom the parent resided at the time the offense occurred, or the other parent of the child, or (ii) felony assault resulting in serious bodily injury, felony bodily wounding resulting in serious bodily injury, or felony sexual assault, if the victim of the offense was a child of the parent or a child with whom the parent resided at the time of the offense. When such a petition to enjoin the filing of a petition for custody and visitation is filed, the court shall appoint a guardian ad litem for the child pursuant to § 16.1-266.

F. In any custody or visitation case or proceeding wherein an order prohibiting a party from picking the child up from school is entered pursuant to this section or § 20-103, the court shall order a party to such case or proceeding to provide a copy of such custody or visitation order to the school at which the child is enrolled within three business days of such party's receipt of such custody or visitation order.

If a custody determination affects the school enrollment of the child subject to such custody order and prohibits a party from picking the child up from school, the court shall order a party to provide a copy of such custody order to the school at which the child will be enrolled within three business days of such party's receipt of such order. Such order directing a party to provide a copy of such custody or visitation order shall further require such party, upon any subsequent change in the child's school enrollment, to provide a copy of such custody or visitation order to the new school at which the child is subsequently enrolled within three business days of such enrollment.

If the court determines that a party is unable to deliver the custody or visitation order to the school, such party shall provide the court with the name of the principal and address of the school, and the court shall cause the order to be mailed by first class mail to such school principal.

Nothing in this section shall be construed to require any school staff to interpret or enforce the terms of such custody or visitation order.

1994, c. 769; 1996, cc. 767, 879, 884; 1999, c. 574; 2003, c. 520; 2006, c. 665; 2009, c. 713; 2015, cc. 653, 654; 2017, cc. 46, 95, 509; 2018, c. 857; 2021, Sp. Sess. I, c. 253; 2026, cc. 711, 1116.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 211 cases (24 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Williams v. Williams, 501 S.E.2d 417 (Va. 1998).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Williams v. Williams, 501 S.E.2d 417 (Va. 1998). · cites it 136× “" Continuing, the grandparents assert that Code §§ 20-124.2 and 16.1-241 require that a court balance the interests of the state and the interests of the parents; that the circuit court has appropriately balanced the rights of all parties and found by clear and convincing…”

Bruce M. Mayer v. Linda Corso-Mayer, 753 S.E.2d 263 (Va. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 68× “Order of Continuing Child Support Father appeals the trial court’s finding that continuing child support for daughter was authorized by Code § 20-124.2(0. That statute states, in pertinent part: The court may order that support be paid for any child of the parties.”

Roberts v. Roberts, 586 S.E.2d 290 (Va. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 52× “on with the parties' two minor children and the award of sole legal custody to Sonja Knipe Roberts (mother), Jeffrey Scott Roberts (father) contends: 1) that the trial court erred by failing to consider properly "the presumption that parents act in the best interests of their…”

Brown v. Brown, 518 S.E.2d 336 (Va. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 24× “In resolving disputes between parents over the custody and visitation of minor children, "the court shall give primary consideration to the best interests of the child," Code § 20-124.2, considering the various factors outlined in Code § 20-124.”

Stadter v. Siperko, 661 S.E.2d 494 (Va. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 24× “For purposes of the visitation provisions of Code § 20-124.2, the trial court found that appellant was a person with a "legitimate interest" in child and that mother was a fit parent.”

Mullin v. Mullin, 610 S.E.2d 331 (Va. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 16× “was physically disabled was “hearsay lay evidence,” that mother presented no evidence relating to M.M.’s ability to support himself or to live alone, and that there was no causal evidence linking M.”

Germek v. Germek, 537 S.E.2d 596 (Va. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 18× “ANALYSIS Pursuant to Code § 20-124.2(0, a court “may ... order the continuation of support for any child over the age of eighteen who is (i) severely and permanently mentally or physically disabled, (ii) unable to live independently and support himself, and (iii) resides in the…”

O'ROURKE v. Vuturo, 638 S.E.2d 124 (Va. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 12× “See also Code § 20-124.2(A). While the court must consider the factors in the statute, “it is not ‘required to quantify or elaborate exactly what weight or consideration it has given to each of the statutory factors.”

Williams v. Williams, 485 S.E.2d 651 (Va. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 14× “Appellants assert that Code § 20-124.2(B), as it pertains to non-parent visitation, violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

Ryan Bedell v. Christina Price & Walter Ryan Matzuk, 828 S.E.2d 263 (Va. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 6× “645, 658 (1972); see also Code § 20-124.2(B) (providing that although a court making a custody determination “shall give primary consideration to the best interests of the child[,]” it also must “give due regard to the primacy of the parent-child relationship” and may “award…”

Kirk T. Milam v. Sheila J. Milam, 778 S.E.2d 535 (Va. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 8× “The court rejected father’s argument that only those children whom he is obligated to support under Code § 20-124.2 should be included in household size.”

Yopp v. Hodges, 598 S.E.2d 760 (Va. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 8× “2(B) provides that the "court shall give due regard to the primacy of the parent-child relationship but may upon a showing by clear and convincing evidence that the best interest of the child would be served thereby award custody or visitation to any other person with a…”

Show all 211 citing cases →

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-124.2(A) — 16 cases

Williams v. Williams, 501 S.E.2d 417 (Va. 1998). “" Continuing, the grandparents assert that Code §§ 20-124.2 and 16.1-241 require that a court balance the interests of the state and the interests of the parents; that the circuit court has appropriately balanced the rights of all parties and found by clear and convincing…”

O'ROURKE v. Vuturo, 638 S.E.2d 124 (Va. Ct. App. 2006). “See also Code § 20-124.2(A). While the court must consider the factors in the statute, “it is not ‘required to quantify or elaborate exactly what weight or consideration it has given to each of the statutory factors.”

Lynchburg Div. of Soc. Servs. v. Cook, 648 S.E.2d 328 (Va. Ct. App. 2007).

Brandon Lenir Sanders v. Natasha Sophia Oginsky (Va. Ct. App. 2024).

Devonia Burgess v. Anwar Burgess (Va. Ct. App. 2021).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-124.2(B) — 91 cases

Roberts v. Roberts, 586 S.E.2d 290 (Va. Ct. App. 2003). “on with the parties' two minor children and the award of sole legal custody to Sonja Knipe Roberts (mother), Jeffrey Scott Roberts (father) contends: 1) that the trial court erred by failing to consider properly "the presumption that parents act in the best interests of their…”

Stadter v. Siperko, 661 S.E.2d 494 (Va. Ct. App. 2008). “For purposes of the visitation provisions of Code § 20-124.2, the trial court found that appellant was a person with a "legitimate interest" in child and that mother was a fit parent.”

Williams v. Williams, 485 S.E.2d 651 (Va. Ct. App. 1997). “Appellants assert that Code § 20-124.2(B), as it pertains to non-parent visitation, violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

Ryan Bedell v. Christina Price & Walter Ryan Matzuk, 828 S.E.2d 263 (Va. Ct. App. 2019). “645, 658 (1972); see also Code § 20-124.2(B) (providing that although a court making a custody determination “shall give primary consideration to the best interests of the child[,]” it also must “give due regard to the primacy of the parent-child relationship” and may “award…”

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-124.2(B)(1) — 1 case

Cathryn Rose Rainey v. Chad Christopher Rainey (Va. Ct. App. 2022).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-124.2(B2) — 2 cases

Thomas Fullen Williams v. Maggie Kelly Panter (Va. Ct. App. 2025).

Sara JoAnne Martin v. Philip Martin & Donna Martin (Va. Ct. App. 2022).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-124.2(C) — 23 cases

Bruce M. Mayer v. Linda Corso-Mayer, 753 S.E.2d 263 (Va. Ct. App. 2014). “Order of Continuing Child Support Father appeals the trial court’s finding that continuing child support for daughter was authorized by Code § 20-124.2(0. That statute states, in pertinent part: The court may order that support be paid for any child of the parties.”

Mullin v. Mullin, 610 S.E.2d 331 (Va. Ct. App. 2005). “was physically disabled was “hearsay lay evidence,” that mother presented no evidence relating to M.M.’s ability to support himself or to live alone, and that there was no causal evidence linking M.”

Germek v. Germek, 537 S.E.2d 596 (Va. Ct. App. 2000). “ANALYSIS Pursuant to Code § 20-124.2(0, a court “may ... order the continuation of support for any child over the age of eighteen who is (i) severely and permanently mentally or physically disabled, (ii) unable to live independently and support himself, and (iii) resides in the…”

Goldin v. Goldin, 538 S.E.2d 326 (Va. Ct. App. 2000).

Kirk T. Milam v. Sheila J. Milam, 778 S.E.2d 535 (Va. Ct. App. 2015). “The court rejected father’s argument that only those children whom he is obligated to support under Code § 20-124.2 should be included in household size.”

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-124.2(D) — 8 cases

Shari Sims-Bernard v. Stephen P. Bernard (Va. Ct. App. 2018).

Cathryn Rose Rainey v. Chad Christopher Rainey (Va. Ct. App. 2022).

Terrye L. Richter & Rudy Richter v. Diana Nichole Manning, n/k/a Diana Nichole Perry (Va. Ct. App. 2013).

William R. Winters v. Cleome J. Winters (Va. Ct. App. 2021).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-124.2(E) — 15 cases

Sullivan v. Jones, 595 S.E.2d 36 (Va. Ct. App. 2004).

Amit Varma v. Meenakshi Bindal (Va. Ct. App. 2017).

William R. Winters v. Cleome J. Winters (Va. Ct. App. 2021).

Delores O'Brien Heffernan v. Arlington Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs. (Va. Ct. App. 2014).

Natal v. Natal, 86 Va. Cir. 278 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2012).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-124.2(b) — 2 cases

Amer Samman v. Heather Sharisse Steber (Va. Ct. App. 2005).

Bradford Ramey Ingram v. Melissa Zurun Ingram (Va. Ct. App. 1999).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-124.2(c) — 2 cases

Robdau v. Commonwealth, 543 S.E.2d 602 (Va. Ct. App. 2001).

Adcock v. Com., Dept. of Soc. Servs., 693 S.E.2d 757 (Va. Ct. App. 2010).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.