Introduction 

The Court of Appeals af irmed that persistent parental conflict can render joint physical custody unworkable, even when both parents are otherwise fit, warranting an award of sole physical custody to protect a child’s stability. 

In Raines v. Millard (Record No. 1416-23-3, Va. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2025), the Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed a Lynchburg Circuit Court decision awarding sole physical custody of two minor children to the mother while maintaining joint legal custody. The ruling reinforces that when ongoing parental conflict undermines cooperation and decision-making, trial courts may properly find that shared physical custody is not in the best interests of the child. 

Background 

The circuit court found that chronic disagreements over schooling, healthcare, and activities destabilized the children’s routine, making the week-on, week-of schedule no longer feasible. 

Zachary Raines (“Father”) and Sarah Millard (“Mother”) share two minor children and previously exercised joint physical and legal custody under a week-on, week-off schedule ordered by the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court. Mother appealed the arrangement, citing frequent disagreements over schooling, healthcare, and extracurricular activities. 

At trial, the Circuit Court heard extensive evidence of ongoing disputes that affected the children’s well-being. The oldest child was interviewed in camera, and the guardian ad litem reported continued parental friction despite mediation efforts. The court concluded that joint physical custody was no longer workable, awarded joint legal custody to both parents, but granted Mother final decision-making authority and sole physical custody. 

Father appealed, asserting that the circuit court misapplied Virginia’s best-interest factors under Code §§ 20-124.2 and 20-124.3, that the guardian ad litem was biased, and that the trial court’s evidentiary rulings reflected unfairness. 

Legal Analysis 

The Court held that the trial court acted within its discretion under Virginia’s best-interest factors, concluding that ongoing parental conflict (not parental fitness) made joint physical custody detrimental to the children.

Judge Junius P. Fulton III, writing for the Court of Appeals, rejected all of Father’s claims and affirmed the trial court. The Court emphasized that under Code § 20-124.2(B), the “paramount concern” in any custody decision is always the best interests of the child. Trial courts are afforded broad discretion to weigh the statutory factors in § 20-124.3, including the parents’ ability to cooperate, resolve disputes, and maintain a positive relationship with the other parent, without being required to assign specific weight to each. Evidence at trial showed that the parents’ repeated disagreements over healthcare and extracurricular decisions had disrupted the children’s routine and heightened stress within the family. The Court found that continued joint custody would likely prolong these conflicts, undermining the children’s emotional stability. 

The opinion also addressed Father’s arguments regarding judicial bias and the guardian ad litem’s alleged partiality, finding no evidence to support either claim. Moreover, the Court upheld the trial court’s evidentiary rulings, including its exclusion of one of Father’s self-prepared charts as cumulative and unverified. Ultimately, the Court held that the trial court properly balanced the relevant statutory factors and exercised sound discretion in concluding that sole physical custody with Mother was in the children’s best interests. 

Implications 

The ruling highlights that unresolved parental conflict can justify terminating joint physical custody, af irms the trial court’s broad discretion in weighing best-interest factors, and underscores the viability of joint legal custody even when shared parenting time is unworkable. 

1. Persistent conflict between parents can justify terminating joint physical custody even when both parents are otherwise “fit and loving.” 

2. Trial courts have broad discretion to assess the credibility of witnesses and the weight of evidence when determining children’s best interests. 

3. Joint legal custody with final decision-making authority in one parent remains a viable structure when cooperation is limited, but both parents should retain involvement in major decision

For parents navigating similar disputes, this case serves as a reminder that the courts prioritize the child’s emotional stability and well-being above parental preferences or symmetry in parenting time. 

Smith Strong Can Help 

Smith Strong provides steady, evidence-driven representation for parents navigating conflict-heavy custody cases, ensuring that arguments stay focused on the child’s best interests under Virginia law.

Custody cases involving parental conflict require experienced, steady advocacy. At Smith Strong, PLC, our family law attorneys help clients present credible, evidence-based arguments that reflect the best interests of their children while protecting parental rights under Virginia law. To schedule a confidential consultation, contact our Richmond office at (804) 325-1245 or in Williamsburg at (757) 941-4298.