BTW:  While fathers might view the decision below as being bad for fathers, it bears far deeper consequences for the public's increasingly realistic distrust and disrespect for Courts.  Any Court which openly promotes flagrant lawlessness brings tremendous dishonor on thelegal  profession and the integrity of  the Courts, and harms the citizens of the State.  The Bar Association in Virginia should look into these judges, who should be disciplined.

____________________

In February of 1999, The Virginia Supreme Court ruled in Parrish v. Spaulding [http://www.courts.state.va.us/txtops/1980913.txt] that mothers do not have to obey court orders.  In that case, the mother was under an order prohibiting her from moving with the children. She moved anyway. The Supreme Court said "that's okay, mommies do not have to obey court orders."

____________________

In July of 2000, the Virginia Court of Appeals has once again affirmed that mommies do not have to obey court orders and that statutes involving the "friendly parent doctrine" and visitation rights only apply against fathers, not mommies.  In Cintron v. Long,  [http://www.courts.state.va.us/txtops/2169992.txt] the mother refused to allow court ordered visitation.  Two court-appointed psychologists also pointed out that the mother had alienated the child against the father and that the mother was poisonous to the child. The trial court gave custody to the father. 
   The Court of Appeals reversed and chastised the trial court for changing custody "merely" because mommy never obeyed any court order.

The clear message is that only men need to obey court orders.  It is also clear that women do not need to obey court orders and hurting children on purpose is condoned and encouraged by the Virginia Judicial hierarchy.