[OldDeckHand]

"On what grounds? It's a very simply question. Did the Court reach the merits of Miller's argument or not? "

The court cited the law of the case doctrine, so you know that they didn't rule on the merits of this case. So what? Their ruling still binds the lower courts to the custody/visitation order of the Vermont court.

And, the Vermont court followed their statutory law. The child custody has been determined and the Virginia Supreme has ruled that determination is binding in Virginia.

[freedomwarrior998]

The court cited the law of the case doctrine, so you know that they didn't rule on the merits of this case. So what? Their ruling still binds the lower courts to the custody/visitation order of the Vermont court. Took you long enough. It also is in direct contradiction to your prior assertion. (I am willing to bet that you had no clue as to the grounds of the VA Supreme Court decision before I called you on it.)

With that in mind, how did Chief Justice Hassell characterize the VA Court of Appeals ruling in his concurring opinion?

And, the Vermont court followed their statutory law. The child custody has been determined and the Virginia Supreme has ruled that determination is binding in Virginia.

No, the Virginia Supreme Court never reached the merits of the case, as we already established.