William Scott Mollette v. Roanoke County Department of Social Services
This text of William Scott Mollette v. Roanoke County Department of Social Services (William Scott Mollette v. Roanoke County Department of Social Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges McClanahan, Haley and Senior Judge Willis
WILLIAM SCOTT MOLLETTE MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 2963-08-3 PER CURIAM APRIL 28, 2009 ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF SALEM Robert P. Doherty, Jr., Judge
(Joseph F. Vannoy, on brief), for appellant. Appellant submitting on brief.
(Ruth Ellen Kuhnel, Assistant County Attorney; Diana M. Perkinson, Guardian ad litem for the minor children, on brief), for appellee. Appellee and Guardian ad litem submitting on brief.
William Scott Mollette (hereinafter “father”) appeals the termination of his residual
parental rights to his children, K.M. and D.M., pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(B), (C)(2), and
(E)(iii). Father asserts the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s decision.
While father maintains he preserved this argument below in a motion to strike, the record on
appeal does not contain a transcript or written statement of facts. See Rule 5A:8(a) and (c). “It
is the duty of the parties to provide us with a record sufficiently complete to support their legal
arguments.” Artis v. Jones, 52 Va. App. 356, 364 n.1, 663 S.E.2d 521, 524 n.1 (2008). Upon
reviewing the record and the opening brief, we conclude that a transcript or written statement of
facts is indispensable to a determination of the question presented on appeal. See Anderson v.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 506, 508-09, 413 S.E.2d 75, 76-77 (1992); Turner v.
Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 96, 99-100, 341 S.E.2d 400, 402 (1986).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Affirmed.
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
William Scott Mollette v. Roanoke County Department of Social Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-scott-mollette-v-roanoke-county-department-vactapp-2009.