Opinion
Record No. 1230-92-4
June 1, 1993
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY CARLETON PENN, JUDGE DESIGNATE.
(Alan Shachter, on brief), for appellant.
(Charlton E. Gnadt, Jr., Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney, on brief), for appellee.
Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis.
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.
George McCall ("father") appeals an order of the circuit court increasing his monthly child support payment from $300 per month to $782 per month. He alleges that the evidence he presented as to the factors set forth in Code §§ 20-107.2 and -108.1 renders application of the amount computed under the guidelines of Code § 20-108.2 unjust and inappropriate. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27.
In any proceeding determining child support, there is a rebuttable presumption that the amount determined through application of the statutory child support guidelines is the correct amount. Code §§ 20-108.1(B) and -108.2(A). Therefore, a trial judge must first determine the presumptive amount before considering any other factors. Alexander v. Alexander, 12 Va. App. 691, 695, 406 S.E.2d 666, 668 (1991). This amount is computed by considering the gross income of both parents and the number of children involved. No additions or subtractions to gross income may be made before the initial figure is computed.Richardson v. Richardson, 12 Va. App. 18, 21, 401 S.E.2d 894, 896 (1991). Once this amount is determined, the trial judge may adjust it based on factors found in Code §§ 20-107.2 and -108.1. Scott v. Scott, 12 Va. App. 1245, 1248, 408 S.E.2d 579, 581 (1991). Any deviation from the presumptive amount must be supported by written findings of the trial judge specifying why the application of the guideline amount would be unjust or inappropriate. Richardson, 12 Va. App. at 21, 401 S.E.2d at 896. "Code § 20-107.2(2) vests discretion in the trial court in awarding child support and such awards will not be reversed on appeal unless plainly wrong or unsupported by the evidence."Young v. Young, 3 Va. App. 80, 81, 348 S.E.2d 46, 47 (1986).
In this case, the parties stipulated the presumptive amount. Father argued that the evidence established that application of the statutory amount was inappropriate and unjust. Such evidence included the facts that Sheila McCall ("mother") has attained a higher educational level than father; mother has a monthly surplus of income; mother contributes a large amount to charity; mother claims the children as dependents on state and federal tax returns; and the children's needs have been met under the prior, pre-guideline award. The trial judge concluded "that after consideration of the factors set out in Virginia Code Section 20-108.1(B), evidence presented and argument of counsel, the evidence does not support findings that the application of the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate under Virginia Code Section 20-108.1(B) or Virginia Code Section 20-107.2."
The trial judge followed the statutory procedures in determining father's support obligation. He considered the evidence and arguments presented by father. The record does not establish that the trial judge abused his discretion in applying the evidence. The trial judge's decision that the evidence did not render the presumptive amount unjust or inappropriate is not plainly wrong or unsupported by the evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the decision.
Affirmed.