NOTICE: The opinions posted here are
subject to formal revision. If you find a typographical error or
other formal error, please notify the Virginia Court of Appeals.
OCTOBER 17, 2000
Record No. 0043-00-4
Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judges Benton
Argued at Alexandria, Virginia
THOMAS ALBERT STANLEY
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY
Jane Marum Roush, Judge
BY JUDGE ROSEMARIE ANNUNZIATA
Donna Porter Gair (Porter & Gair, P.C., on
briefs), for appellant.
Thomas A. Stanley, pro se.
Appellant, Tracy Austin, appeals from an order
of the trial court regarding modification of child support. She
contends the court erred in both imputing her pre-retirement
income to her and in relying on her new spouse’s income as a
basis for deviating from the guideline support amount. She also
contends that no evidence supports the specific amount by which
the court deviated from the guideline amount and that the court
failed to state its findings in writing. Appellee, Thomas
Stanley, alleges that Austin failed to preserve these issues for
review in accordance with Rule 5A:18, and therefore this Court is
foreclosed from reviewing them on their merits. We agree with
Stanley’s argument and affirm the decision of the trial court.
Rule 5A:18, states: "No ruling of the
trial court . . . will be considered as a basis for reversal
unless the objection was stated together with the grounds
therefor at the time of the
ruling . . . ." At the bottom of the
order of modification of child support at issue in this case, in
the section entitled, "Objections of Complainant,"
Austin stated the following:
After deviating from the child support
guidelines by imputing full income to Complainant, thus deeming
Complainant to be fully self-supporting, the Court on its own
motion further deviated by adding $250.00 to amount due from
Complainant each month based on "substantial assistance from
new husband for basic needs, such as housing, food, etc."
without evidence or law to support such a finding.
No other objection is cited in the record or
the statement of facts filed in support of this appeal.
We hold that Austin failed to preserve the
issues she raises on appeal. First, she failed to specify the
grounds for her objection to the trial court’s ruling that based
on "substantial assistance from [Austin’s] new husband"
a deviation in the amount of $250 was warranted. The "mere
statement that the judgment [of the trial
court] . . . is contrary to the law and the
evidence is not sufficient to constitute a question to be ruled
upon on appeal." Rule 5A:18; see also Lee v. Lee,
12 Va. App. 512, 515, 404 S.E.2d 736, 738 (1991). In addition,
Austin made no objection whatsoever with respect to any failure
by the trial court to make written findings justifying its
departure from the guidelines. These issues were therefore not
properly preserved for appeal. See Rule 5A:18.
Furthermore, because good cause has not been shown and the record
fails to affirmatively disclose that a miscarriage of justice has
occurred, see Mounce v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App.
433, 436, 357 S.E.2d 742, 744 (1987), we decline to address the
issues raised and affirm the decision of the trial court.
 Pursuant to Code ? 17.1-413, recodifying Code
? 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for