In the case of Reese v. Reese, the Virginia Court of Appeals, in an unpublished decision, ruled that the trial court correctly denied a mother’s request for a continuance of a custody hearing where she failed to exercise diligence in securing attendance of child witness and correctly determined the father's child care costs. However, the trial court erred in its determination of the appropriate marital share of father’s military pension.
Mother failed to subpoena the child witness, the parties' daugther, instead relying on the fact that she listed in the child in her witness list. At trial, father failed to bring the daughter with him. Mother sought a continuance and the trial court ruled the father mother failed to exercise due dilligence in seeking the daughter's attendance at trial. Due diligence requires, at a minimum, that a party attempt to subpoena the witness or provide a reasonable explanation why a subpoena was not issued.
Wife also contends that the trial court erred in finding that husband spent $800.00 per month in child care costs based upon his testimony alone. The trial court accepted the testimony without corroboration finding that the amount was not unreasonable. Because the credibility of a witness and the weight accorded the evidence are matters solely for the trial court determine, the Virginia Court of Appeals upheld the decision to accept the oral testimony alone as proof of the child care costs.
As for the matter of the military pension, the Virginia Court of Appeals ruled the trial court made a mistake by excluding vrom consideration that portion of the military pension acquired by husband while they were only temporarily separated.