COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Frank, Clements and Haley

WILLIAM WILLIAMSON MEMORANDUM OPINION ∗ v. Record No. 2653-04-3 PER CURIAM MAY 24, 2005 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT,

ex rel. AVRIL PILSON

FROM THE CIRCUIT C OURT OF HENRY COUNTY David V. Williams, Judge (William Williamson, pro se , on brief). No brief for appellee.
William Williamson (father) appeals from a decision of the trial court denying his appeal of an order entered on July 12, 2004 by the Henr y County Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court (JDR court), and remanding the cas e to the JDR court, while ordering that its disposition remain in full force and effect. Fath er contends the JDR cour t abused its discretion (1) in denying his Motion to Amend or Review th e child support order ente red in favor of Avril Pilson (mother) based on the ground that fath er failed to state a ppropriate reasons for modification; and (2) when it denied the Motion to Amend or Review the support order, thereby allowing the Division of Child Support Enforcemen t (DCSE) to continue to illegally deduct funds from father’s Inmate Tr ust Account. Upon revi ewing the record and opening brief, we

∗ Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.- 2 - conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27. 1 On appeal, we view the evidence in the lig ht most favorable to the party prevailing below, affording to the evidence all infere nces reasonably deducible therefrom. See McGuire v. McGuire , 10 Va. App. 248, 250, 391 S.E.2d 344, 346 (1990). On September 29, 1988, after a support and cu stody hearing, the JDR court, among other findings, ordered father to pay directly to mother child support in the amount of $60 per week for
the benefit of their two minor child ren. The parties were not married. The record contains an “Order/Notice to Withhold Income for Child Support” dated December 3, 2003, directed to Coffeewood Correcti onal Center, for current and past due child support payable by father to mother. On April 5, 2004, father filed a Motion to Ame nd or Review Order with the JDR court. That motion indicated that father resided at Coffeewood Correctional Center, Mitchells, Virginia. Father requested that the Se ptember 29, 1988 child support order be changed, amended, and/or modified “[d]ue to my being incarcerated. I’m respectfully asking that the court will Review this case because of status change. I’ve been incarcerated since 1 995 and my release date is 2013. I’m asking for Motion for Modification of Support Decree.” Father stated the following reasons in support of his motion: “I’m not making the m oney that requires me to meet the demands of $60.00 plus $15.00 per week. My da ughter is now 18 yrs. old 19 in two weeks.” Father indicated that on December 24, 2003, he received a letter from DCSE advising him that he owed $37,972 in past due child support. Father furt her alleged that certain amounts had been unlawfully deducted from his inmate trust account for such support.

1 In deciding this appeal, we did not consid er any documents contained in the appendix filed by father that were not c ontained in the record on appeal.- 3 - A hearing in the JDR court was scheduled for July 12, 2004, on father’s motion to amend or review the support order. A summons directed at father was served on Harris Diggs, Assistant Warden, at Coffeewood Correcti onal Center. Father moved for appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent his interests and entry of a transportation order for the July 12, 2004 hearing. The JDR cour t denied both motions. 2 Mother and a DCSE representa tive appeared at the July 12, 2 004 hearing. Father was not present. 3 The JDR court dismissed father’s motion on the ground that he failed to state an appropriate reason for modification because he “i s incarcerated due to his own fault = i.e. – criminal conviction.” Father appealed the JDR court’s July 12, 2004 decision to the trial court, alleging the JDR court “abused its discretion in denying the motion to amend or revi ew support order; and abused its discretion in allowing [DCSE] to cont inue to illegally deduct funds from [father’s] Inmate Trust Fund.” By order entered September 30, 2004, the tr ial court “for good cause shown” denied father’s appeal of the JDR c ourt’s decision, remanded the matter to the JDR court, and ordered that the JDR court’s disposition remain in full force and effect. Father appealed that order to this
Court.

2 Father did not object to the JDR court’s deni al of those motions before the JDR court or the trial court. In addition, he did not raise any argument before either court that the JDR court abused its discretion and deprived him of a full a nd fair hearing in violation of due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Unit ed States Constitution. Accordingly, we will not consider those arguments for the fi rst time on appeal. Ohree v. Commonwealth , 26 Va. App. 299, 308, 494 S.E.2d 484, 488 (1998). See Rule 5A:18.

3 The record contains no transcript or writt en statement of the July 12, 2004 proceeding. However, because we have determined that a transc ript or written statement of that proceeding is not indispensable to th e issue raised by father on appeal , we do not dismiss this appeal.- 4 - “Decisions concerning child s upport rest within the sound disc retion of the trial court and will not be reversed on appeal unless plainly wrong or unsupported by the evidence.” Smith v. Smith , 18 Va. App. 427, 433, 444 S.E.2d 269, 274 (1994). “Once a child support award has be en entered, only a showing of a material change in circumstances will justify modification of the support award. The moving party has the burden of proving a material change by a preponderance of the evidence.” “[A] party seeking a reduction in support payments has additional burdens: ‘He must make a full and clear disc losure relating to his ability to pay. He must also show that his lack of ability to pay is not due to his own voluntary act or because of his neglect.’” Thus, in order to prove a material change in circum stances that justifies a reduction in support, a parent “must establ ish that he is not ‘voluntarily unemployed or voluntarily under employed.’” Hatloy v. Hatloy , 41 Va. App. 667, 672, 588 S.E.2d 389, 391 (2003) (citations omitted). “[A] parent’s incarceration may be found to cons titute voluntary unemployment under Code § 20-108.1(B)(3), and, consequently, it may precl ude a reduction of a support obligation based on a loss of income resulting from that incarceration.” Layman v. Layman , 25 Va. App. 365, 368, 488 S.E.2d 658, 659 (1997). Here, although the evidence showed a material change occurred in father’s financial circumstances due to his incarceration since en try of the 1988 support order, the evidence failed to show that father’s inability to pay child support was “not due to his own voluntary act” in committing a crime, which resulted in his incarceration. See id. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying father’s appeal of the JDR c ourt’s decision, and we cannot say as a matter of law that its decision finding father ’s incarceration did not en title him to a reduction in support was plainly wrong or w ithout evidence to support it. For these reasons, we summarily a ffirm the trial court’s decision. Affirmed.