COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Willis, Fitzpatrick and Senior Judge Hodges 

Argued at Alexandria, Virginia 

FRANK T. SLONKA 

v. Record No. 1478-94-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

 JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR. 

JOAN LOUISE PENNLINE, f/k/a OCTOBER 17, 1995 

 JOAN LOUISE SLONKA 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY 

William D. Hamblen, Judge 

 Stephen M. Farmer (Farmer & Stevens, on 

brief), for appellant. 

 No brief or argument for appellee. 

 On appeal from the denial of his motion for a reduction in 

child support, Frank T. Slonka contends that the trial court 

erred in not reducing his support obligation to the presumptive 

amount under the guidelines in Code § 20-108.2. We find no error 

and affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

 By final decree entered January 14, 1992, the trial court 

awarded Ms. Pennline a divorce a vinculo matrimonii from Mr. 

Slonka. The decree incorporated by reference a property 

settlement agreement entered into by the parties on February 19, 

1991, which provided: 

 11. CUSTODY AND VISITATION. 

 

 A. The parties shall have joint physical 

custody of the parties minor children, 

 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
 2 

 . . . where both parties share 

physical and custodial care of the 

minor children . . . . 

 12. SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE FOR CHILDREN. 

 The Husband agrees to pay to the Wife for the 

support and maintenance of . . . the minor 

children of the parties, the following . . .: 

 Through August, 1991, the sum of Three 

Hundred Dollars ($300.00) per month and all 

of the monthly child care expenses incurred 

due to the Wife's employment; From September, 

1991 through August, 1992, the sum of Four 

Hundred Dollars ($400.00) and all of the 

monthly child care expenses . . .; and 

beginning September, 1992, the sum of Five 

Hundred Dollars ($500.00) per month and all 

of the monthly child care expenses . . . . 

* * * * * * * 

 21. MODIFICATION. 

 No modification or waiver of any of the terms 

of this Agreement shall be valid unless in 

writing and executed with the same formality 

as this Agreement. 

 On October 9, 1992, Mr. Slonka moved to reduce his child 

support obligation. At an ore tenus hearing, both parties 

presented their monthly expenses. The trial court found there 

had been no substantial change in either party's expenses and 

that Mr. Slonka had failed to meet his threshold burden of 

showing a material change justifying modification. It denied his 

motion for a reduction. 

 On appeal, a panel of this Court held that the trial court 

erred in requiring a change in circumstances other than the 

guideline enactment. We said: 

 [found] the case at bar analogous to Watkinson and 

Milligan, because the 1992 amendment to Code 
 3 

§ 20-108.2(G) created a new category for shared custody 

arrangements, which significantly changed the earlier 

guideline considerations and amounts. 

 

 The trial judge erred in requiring an additional change 

in circumstances for a hearing other than the 

substantive guideline amendment which resulted in a 

significant disparity in the parties' support 

obligations. He failed to determine the presumptive 

amount of child support in accordance with Code 

§ 20-108.2 and, if necessary, to make the required 

written findings explaining his reasons for deviating 

from that amount if found to be "unjust or 

inappropriate." 

Slonka v. Pennline, 17 Va. App. 662, 665, 440 S.E.2d 423, 425 

(1994) (citation omitted). We reversed and remanded the case to 

the trial court to conduct a hearing consistent with the opinion. 

 On May 6, 1994, the trial court conducted a hearing to 

consider the parties' financial circumstances and to determine 

the presumptive guideline amount under Code § 20-108.2. The 

trial court determined that under the circumstances, the 

presumptive amount of child support was "unjust and inappropriate 

and that the factors enumerated in Sections 20-108.1(B)(16) and 

20-108.1(B)(17) mandate deviation from [the Guidelines] . . . ." 

 The enactment of the 1992 amendment to Code 

§ 20-108.2(G)(13) established a new shared custody guidelines 

category. If the presumptive guideline amount differs 

significantly from the amount of child support provided under a 

property settlement agreement, that disparity is a change in 

circumstances justifying review. In this case, a significant 

disparity existed between Mr. Slonka's child support obligation 

under the property settlement agreement and the amount provided 
 4 

under the guidelines. Although the disparity was a material 

change requiring review, we find no error in the trial court's 

determination that it did not require modification of the earlier 

support award. 

 On February 19, 1991, the parties entered into a property 

settlement agreement which was incorporated into their final 

divorce decree on January 14, 1992. The agreement provided that 

they would share custody of their two children equally. Mr. 

Slonka agreed to pay $500 a month in child support plus 

additional child care and health care expenses. The agreement 

itself provided specifically for modification only upon written 

agreement of the parties. 

 At the October 9, 1992 hearing, the evidence showed the 

parties' financial situation to be the same as when the property 

settlement agreement was incorporated into the divorce decree. 

 The evidence showed that Mr. Slonka was paying $844 per month in 

child support, and that if his obligation was calculated under 

Code § 20-108.2(G)(3), the presumptive guideline amount would be 

$54 per month. Ms. Pennline testified that she had purchased a 

home in reliance on the earlier agreement and that without the 

current child support, she could not meet the children's 

expenses. On February 24, 1995, the custody decree was modified 

so that while joint custody remained in both parents, physical 

custody was placed solely with Ms. Pennline. 

 The property settlement agreement, approved and incorporated 
 5 

into the divorce decree, provided adequately and properly for the 

support of the parties' children. The enactment of the 

guidelines, although a change in circumstances, was not a change 

requiring modification of the earlier award. 

 We affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

 Affirmed.