Commonwealth v. Dickerson

Fairfax County Circuit Court

Commonwealth v. Dickerson

17 Va. Cir. 22, 1988 Va. Cir. LEXIS 292

CourtFairfax County Circuit Court

DecidedApril 13, 1988

DocketCase No. (Criminal) JO2443

StatusPublished

This text of 17 Va. Cir. 22 (Commonwealth v. Dickerson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Fairfax County Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Dickerson, 17 Va. Cir. 22, 1988 Va. Cir. LEXIS 292 (Va. Super. Ct. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

By JUDGE THOMAS J. MIDDLETON

This matter is before the Court on the petition of the Virginia Department of Social Services, by the Assistant Attorney General, to intervene on behalf of Ester L. Allen for the purposes of requesting a rehearing in her action for child support and paternity. The request for intervention is denied.

In Virginia, a trial court has discretion in permitting an intervening petition to be filed. Rule 2:15; Layton v. Seawall Enterprises, Inc., 231 Va. 402, 405-6 (1986). In the present case, Ms. Allen contacted the Virginia Department of Social Services, Division of Child Support Enforcement, on January 11, 1988, to act on her behalf in matters of child support. This contact was over seven weeks before the March 3, 1988, hearing in Fairfax Circuit Court. The Attorney General had ample opportunity to intervene before the March 3 trial and cannot now "officially" intervene by petition. At the March 3 trial, Ms. Allen was represented by counsel, Louis R. Paulick, Esq. She is now seeking an opportunity to have yet another party adjudicate her cause.

Further, the Attorney General does not propose any new claim or right on behalf of Ms. Allen, but merely asserts the same claim which has been fully adjudicated. [23]*23Therefore, this Court cannot permit new counsel to argue the very same claim under the guise of intervention.

For the reasons stated above, the Petition to Intervene is denied. The Court has entered the Order submitted by Mr. Nye reflecting the March 3, 1988, decision with one slight variation. The Court has ordered that all future matters, including enforcement of the Final Order, are specifically referred to the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court of Fairfax County.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By JUDGE THOMAS J. MIDDLETON

This matter is before the Court on the petition of the Virginia Department of Social Services, by the Assistant Attorney General, to intervene on behalf of Ester L. Allen for the purposes of requesting a rehearing in her action for child support and paternity. The request for intervention is denied.

In Virginia, a trial court has discretion in permitting an intervening petition to be filed. Rule 2:15; Layton v. Seawall Enterprises, Inc., 231 Va. 402, 405-6 (1986). In the present case, Ms. Allen contacted the Virginia Department of Social Services, Division of Child Support Enforcement, on January 11, 1988, to act on her behalf in matters of child support. This contact was over seven weeks before the March 3, 1988, hearing in Fairfax Circuit Court. The Attorney General had ample opportunity to intervene before the March 3 trial and cannot now "officially" intervene by petition. At the March 3 trial, Ms. Allen was represented by counsel, Louis R. Paulick, Esq. She is now seeking an opportunity to have yet another party adjudicate her cause.

Further, the Attorney General does not propose any new claim or right on behalf of Ms. Allen, but merely asserts the same claim which has been fully adjudicated. [23]*23Therefore, this Court cannot permit new counsel to argue the very same claim under the guise of intervention.

For the reasons stated above, the Petition to Intervene is denied. The Court has entered the Order submitted by Mr. Nye reflecting the March 3, 1988, decision with one slight variation. The Court has ordered that all future matters, including enforcement of the Final Order, are specifically referred to the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court of Fairfax County.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 Va. Cir. 22, 1988 Va. Cir. LEXIS 292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-dickerson-vaccfairfax-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack