Virginia Code
Va. Code Ann. § 20-124.3 (2026)
Best interests of the child; visitation
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
In determining best interests of a child for purposes of determining custody or visitation arrangements, including any pendente lite orders pursuant to § 20-103, the court shall consider the following:
1. The age and physical and mental condition of the child, giving due consideration to the child's changing developmental needs;
2. The age and physical and mental condition of each parent;
3. The relationship existing between each parent and each child, giving due consideration to the positive involvement with the child's life, the ability to accurately assess and meet the emotional, intellectual, and physical needs of the child;
4. The needs of the child, giving due consideration to other important relationships of the child, including but not limited to siblings, peers, and extended family members;
5. The role that each parent has played and will play in the future, in the upbringing and care of the child;
6. The propensity of each parent to actively support the child's contact and relationship with the other parent, including whether a parent has unreasonably denied the other parent access to or visitation with the child;
7. The relative willingness and demonstrated ability of each parent to maintain a close and continuing relationship with the child, and the ability of each parent to cooperate in and resolve disputes regarding matters affecting the child;
8. The reasonable preference of the child, if the court deems the child to be of reasonable intelligence, understanding, age, and experience to express such a preference;
9. Any history of (i) family abuse as that term is defined in § 16.1-228; (ii) sexual abuse; (iii) child abuse; or (iv) an act of violence, force, or threat as defined in § 19.2-152.7:1 that occurred no earlier than 10 years prior to the date a petition is filed. If the court finds such a history or act, the court may disregard the factors in subdivision 6; and
10. Such other factors as the court deems necessary and proper to the determination.
The judge shall communicate to the parties the basis of the decision either orally or in writing. Except in cases of consent orders for custody and visitation, this communication shall set forth the judge's findings regarding the relevant factors set forth in this section. At the request of either party, the court may order that the exchange of a child shall take place at an appropriate meeting place.
1994, c. 769; 1999, c. 634; 2000, c. 466; 2004, c. 221; 2009, c. 684; 2012, c. 358; 2019, c. 378; 2020, cc. 1074, 1075.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 349
cases (42 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Robert W Szymczak, II v. Laura M Kane, 585 S.E.2d 349 (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
Robert W Szymczak, II v. Laura M Kane, 585 S.E.2d 349 (Va. Ct. App. 2003). “On appeal, Kane has preserved only one issue for consideration: whether the chancellor failed to comply with Code § 20-124.3's requirement that the court "communicate to the parties the basis for the decision either orally or in writing.”
Edy Canales v. Marvin Alejandro Torres Orellana, 800 S.E.2d 208 (Va. Ct. App. 2017). “In the custody order, the circuit court made findings based on the best interests of the child factors delineated in Code § 20-124.3. The circuit court’s factual findings included that Father “has not maintained a relationship with [M.”
Roberts v. Roberts, 586 S.E.2d 290 (Va. Ct. App. 2003). “In determining what custodial arrangement serves the best interests of a child, the court shall consider the factors enumerated in Code § 20-124.3. These factors include "[t]he relationship existing between each parent and each child, giving due consideration to the positive…”
Philip Surles v. Kristan Mayer & Marty Cullen, Jr., 628 S.E.2d 563 (Va. Ct. App. 2006). “1, and (2) that, considering the factors set forth in Code § 20-124.3, awarding visitation would be in the best interests of the child.”
Joynes v. Payne, 551 S.E.2d 10 (Va. Ct. App. 2001). “ward of custody, Joynes argues that the commissioner and the trial court erred in: (1) failing to grant Joynes custody because the evidence established that Payne’s actions had been adverse to the best interests of the children; (2) applying an erroneous burden of proof with…”
Piatt v. Piatt, 499 S.E.2d 567 (Va. Ct. App. 1998). “The parties acknowledged that their previous shared custody arrangement failed. Credible evidence supports the trial court's award of joint custody with primary placement of the child with husband.”
Sofia Khalid-Schieber, f/k/a Sofia Tanweer Hussain v. Haroon Hussain, 827 S.E.2d 6 (Va. Ct. App. 2019). “Whether the Trial Court Abused its Discretion in its Custody Modification Order Mother alleges that the trial court erred in its custody modification order because the custody arrangements of the order were not in the best interests of the children as required by Code §…”
Artis v. Jones, 663 S.E.2d 521 (Va. Ct. App. 2008). “Father argues that (1) the trial court did not adequately communicate the basis of its decision *359 either orally or in writing, as required by Code § 20-124.3, and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the finding that awarding primary physical custody to mother was in…”
Cloutier v. Queen, 545 S.E.2d 574 (Va. Ct. App. 2001). “CHANCELLOR’S FAILURE TO REFER TO THE STATUTORY FACTORS IN THE ORDER Mother alleges that the trial court failed to consider the statutory factors, as required by Code § 20-124.3, because *425 in reconsidering the case the chancellor “did not even mention, let alone consider, the…”
Lanzalotti v. Lanzalotti, 586 S.E.2d 881 (Va. Ct. App. 2003). “Father contends the trial court erred by (1) failing to communicate the basis of its decision as required by Code § 20-124.3; (2) limiting the length of the hearing; and (3) failing to quash mother’s attorney-issued witness subpoenas.”
Brown v. Brown, 518 S.E.2d 336 (Va. Ct. App. 1999). “Code § 20-124.3 specifies the factors a court "shall consider" in determining the "best interests of a child for .”
Julie A. Rubino v. Justin Rubino, 767 S.E.2d 260 (Va. Ct. App. 2015). “Code § 20-124.3. The circuit court considered, analyzed, and applied the Act under the “catchall” factor of subsection 10 of Code § 20-124.”
Va. Code Ann. § 20-124.3(1): 9 cases
Robert W Szymczak, II v. Laura M Kane, 585 S.E.2d 349 (Va. Ct. App. 2003). “On appeal, Kane has preserved only one issue for consideration: whether the chancellor failed to comply with Code § 20-124.3's requirement that the court "communicate to the parties the basis for the decision either orally or in writing.”
Michael Timmons v. Lilian Mutiso (Va. Ct. App. 2018).
Jason Wynnycky v. Susan T. Kozel (Va. Ct. App. 2019).
Brandon Lenir Sanders v. Natasha Sophia Oginsky (Va. Ct. App. 2024).
Boardwine v. Bruce, 88 Va. Cir. 218 (Roanoke County Cir. Ct. 2014).
Va. Code Ann. § 20-124.3(10): 11 cases
Edy Canales v. Marvin Alejandro Torres Orellana, 800 S.E.2d 208 (Va. Ct. App. 2017). “In the custody order, the circuit court made findings based on the best interests of the child factors delineated in Code § 20-124.3. The circuit court’s factual findings included that Father “has not maintained a relationship with [M.”
Lynchburg Div. of Soc. Servs. v. Cook, 648 S.E.2d 328 (Va. Ct. App. 2007).
Pablo Jesus Lijeron v. Christian Paola Lijeron (Va. Ct. App. 2017).
Brandon Lenir Sanders v. Natasha Sophia Oginsky (Va. Ct. App. 2024).
Thomas Fullen Williams v. Maggie Kelly Panter (Va. Ct. App. 2025).
Va. Code Ann. § 20-124.3(2): 7 cases
Piatt v. Piatt, 499 S.E.2d 567 (Va. Ct. App. 1998). “The parties acknowledged that their previous shared custody arrangement failed. Credible evidence supports the trial court's award of joint custody with primary placement of the child with husband.”
Vissicchio v. Vissicchio, 498 S.E.2d 425 (Va. Ct. App. 1998).
Amy Lynn Childress v. Jimmie DeWitt Childress, III (Va. Ct. App. 2026).
Boardwine v. Bruce, 88 Va. Cir. 218 (Roanoke County Cir. Ct. 2014).
Travis Priest v. Deanna Credle (Va. Ct. App. 2007).
Va. Code Ann. § 20-124.3(3): 18 cases
Edy Canales v. Marvin Alejandro Torres Orellana, 800 S.E.2d 208 (Va. Ct. App. 2017). “In the custody order, the circuit court made findings based on the best interests of the child factors delineated in Code § 20-124.3. The circuit court’s factual findings included that Father “has not maintained a relationship with [M.”
Piatt v. Piatt, 499 S.E.2d 567 (Va. Ct. App. 1998). “The parties acknowledged that their previous shared custody arrangement failed. Credible evidence supports the trial court's award of joint custody with primary placement of the child with husband.”
Sofia Khalid-Schieber, f/k/a Sofia Tanweer Hussain v. Haroon Hussain, 827 S.E.2d 6 (Va. Ct. App. 2019). “Whether the Trial Court Abused its Discretion in its Custody Modification Order Mother alleges that the trial court erred in its custody modification order because the custody arrangements of the order were not in the best interests of the children as required by Code §…”
Vissicchio v. Vissicchio, 498 S.E.2d 425 (Va. Ct. App. 1998).
Lee Trey Bostick v. Shannon T. Bostick-Bennett, 478 S.E.2d 319 (Va. Ct. App. 1996).
Va. Code Ann. § 20-124.3(4): 8 cases
Sofia Khalid-Schieber, f/k/a Sofia Tanweer Hussain v. Haroon Hussain, 827 S.E.2d 6 (Va. Ct. App. 2019). “Whether the Trial Court Abused its Discretion in its Custody Modification Order Mother alleges that the trial court erred in its custody modification order because the custody arrangements of the order were not in the best interests of the children as required by Code §…”
Philip Surles v. Kristan Mayer & Marty Cullen, Jr., 628 S.E.2d 563 (Va. Ct. App. 2006). “1, and (2) that, considering the factors set forth in Code § 20-124.3, awarding visitation would be in the best interests of the child.”
Vissicchio v. Vissicchio, 498 S.E.2d 425 (Va. Ct. App. 1998).
Sara JoAnne Martin v. Philip Martin & Donna Martin (Va. Ct. App. 2022).
Boardwine v. Bruce, 88 Va. Cir. 218 (Roanoke County Cir. Ct. 2014).
Va. Code Ann. § 20-124.3(5): 10 cases
Edy Canales v. Marvin Alejandro Torres Orellana, 800 S.E.2d 208 (Va. Ct. App. 2017). “In the custody order, the circuit court made findings based on the best interests of the child factors delineated in Code § 20-124.3. The circuit court’s factual findings included that Father “has not maintained a relationship with [M.”
Petry v. Petry, 589 S.E.2d 458 (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
Judd v. Judd, 673 S.E.2d 913 (Va. Ct. App. 2009).
Jason Wynnycky v. Susan T. Kozel (Va. Ct. App. 2019).
Misty L. Garrett v. William F. Hanna (Va. Ct. App. 2024).
Va. Code Ann. § 20-124.3(6): 21 cases
Vissicchio v. Vissicchio, 498 S.E.2d 425 (Va. Ct. App. 1998).
Lee Trey Bostick v. Shannon T. Bostick-Bennett, 478 S.E.2d 319 (Va. Ct. App. 1996).
Brown v. Burch, 519 S.E.2d 403 (Va. Ct. App. 1999).
Veronika R. Petrova v. Maxwell S. Leach (Va. Ct. App. 2019).
Jung Sun Park v. Daniel Minkyo Chong (Va. Ct. App. 2019).
Va. Code Ann. § 20-124.3(7): 17 cases
Philip Surles v. Kristan Mayer & Marty Cullen, Jr., 628 S.E.2d 563 (Va. Ct. App. 2006). “1, and (2) that, considering the factors set forth in Code § 20-124.3, awarding visitation would be in the best interests of the child.”
Sargent v. Sargent, 460 S.E.2d 596 (Va. Ct. App. 1995).
Haase v. Haase, 460 S.E.2d 585 (Va. Ct. App. 1995).
Brown v. Burch, 519 S.E.2d 403 (Va. Ct. App. 1999).
Adam Christopher Armstrong v. Kristy Marie Armstrong (Va. Ct. App. 2019).
Va. Code Ann. § 20-124.3(8): 14 cases
Rochelle Lee Eaton v. Washington Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 785 S.E.2d 231 (Va. Ct. App. 2016).
Bryan B. Brittain v. April J. Brittain (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
Kimberley Anne Prentice, f/k/a Kimberley Anne Cook v. Brian Christopher Cook (Va. Ct. App. 2022).
Sara JoAnne Martin v. Philip Martin & Donna Martin (Va. Ct. App. 2022).
Misty L. Garrett v. William F. Hanna (Va. Ct. App. 2024).
Va. Code Ann. § 20-124.3(9): 13 cases
Edy Canales v. Marvin Alejandro Torres Orellana, 800 S.E.2d 208 (Va. Ct. App. 2017). “In the custody order, the circuit court made findings based on the best interests of the child factors delineated in Code § 20-124.3. The circuit court’s factual findings included that Father “has not maintained a relationship with [M.”
Philip Surles v. Kristan Mayer & Marty Cullen, Jr., 628 S.E.2d 563 (Va. Ct. App. 2006). “1, and (2) that, considering the factors set forth in Code § 20-124.3, awarding visitation would be in the best interests of the child.”
Kimberley Anne Prentice, f/k/a Kimberley Anne Cook v. Brian Christopher Cook (Va. Ct. App. 2022).
Brandon Lenir Sanders v. Natasha Sophia Oginsky (Va. Ct. App. 2024).
Scot D. Cook v. Jessica H. Stewart (Va. Ct. App. 2018).
Va. Code Ann. § 20-124.3(A): 1 case
Mandy Lynn Corbin v. Cody Charles Schrock (Va. Ct. App. 2025).
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.