COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Humphreys, Powell and Senior Judge Clements 

ABDERRAHIM NAAMAN 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* 

v. Record No. 1027-10-4 PER CURIAM 

 APRIL 5, 2011 

SAHAR LARRAZABAL 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY 

Jonathan C. Thacher, Judge 

 (Abderrahim Naaman, pro se, on brief). Appellant submitting on 

brief. 

 No brief for appellee. 

 Abderrahim Naaman (father) appeals a child support order. Appellant argues that the trial 

court erred by (1) not retroactively modifying the child support to February 2009, when he 

attempted to file his motion, and (2) not hearing testimony regarding Sahar Larrazabal’s (mother) 

false testimony regarding the previous child support calculation made on August 4, 2006. Upon 

reviewing the record and father’s brief, we affirm the decision of the trial court. 

BACKGROUND 

 On August 4, 2006, the trial court entered a custody, visitation, and child support order. 

Father appealed the order to this Court, which summarily affirmed the trial court. See Naaman 

v. Larrazabal, Record No. 2240-06-4 (Va. Ct. App. May 8, 2007). 

On March 12, 2009, father filed a motion to modify child support. Mother was served 

with the motion on April 20, 2009. The trial court heard evidence and argument on October 19, 

2009. The trial court modified the child support as of September 1, 2009 and determined the 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

amount of arrears. Father objected to the effective date of the modified child support. The trial 

court entered a final order on April 16, 2010, and this appeal followed. 

ANALYSIS 

 Appellant argues that the trial court should have used an earlier commencement date for 

the modified child support and should have heard evidence regarding mother’s testimony at the 

2006 hearing. 

“We have many times pointed out that on appeal the judgment of 

the lower court is presumed to be correct and the burden is on the 

appellant to present to us a sufficient record from which we can 

determine whether the lower court has erred in the respect 

complained of. If the appellant fails to do this, the judgment will 

be affirmed.” 

Smith v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 630, 635, 432 S.E.2d 2, 6 (1993) (quoting Justis v. 

Young, 202 Va. 631, 632, 119 S.E.2d 255, 256-57 (1961)). 

 “When the appellant fails to ensure that the record contains transcripts or a written 

statement of facts necessary to permit resolution of appellate issues, any assignments of error 

affected by such omission shall not be considered.” Rule 5A:8(b)(4)(ii). 

Here, a transcript or a written statement of facts complying with Rule 5A:8(c) is 

indispensable to determining whether the trial court erred in making the child support award. 

See Anderson v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 506, 508-09, 413 S.E.2d 75, 76-77 (1992); Turner 

v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 96, 99-100, 341 S.E.2d 400, 402 (1986). The record contains no 

transcripts of the 2009 or 2010 court proceedings in this case. Father included in the appendix a 

copy of the written statement of facts that he submitted to the trial court, but it was not signed by 

the trial judge in compliance with Rule 5A:8(c). The circuit court record includes a written 

statement of facts that is modified and signed by the trial judge. The trial court modified father’s 

statement of facts by deleting a paragraph, but the signed statement of facts was not included in 

the appendix. 
- 3 - 

The appendix must include “any testimony and other incidents of 

the case germane to the questions presented,” Rule 5A:25(c)(3), 

and “exhibits necessary for an understanding of the case that can 

reasonably be reproduced,” Rule 5A:25(c)(6). “The appendix is a 

tool vital to the function of the appellate process in Virginia. . . . 

By requiring the inclusion of all parts of the record germane to the 

issues, the Rules promote the cause of plenary justice.” Thrasher 

v. Burlage, 219 Va. 1007, 1009-10, 254 S.E.2d 64, 66 (1979) (per 

curiam). Thus, the filing of an appendix that complies with the 

Rules, is “essential to an informed collegiate decision.” Id.

Patterson v. City of Richmond, 39 Va. App. 706, 717, 576 S.E.2d 759, 764-65 (2003). 

Father had the responsibility to provide a complete record to the appellate court. Twardy 

v. Twardy, 14 Va. App. 651, 658, 419 S.E.2d 848, 852 (1992) (en banc). This Court “will not 

search the record for errors in order to interpret the appellant’s contention and correct 

deficiencies in a brief.” Buchanan v. Buchanan, 14 Va. App. 53, 56, 415 S.E.2d 237, 239 

(1992). Nor is it this Court’s “function to comb through the record . . . in order to ferret-out for 

ourselves the validity of [appellant’s] claims.” Fitzgerald v. Bass, 6 Va. App. 38, 56 n.7, 366 

S.E.2d 615, 625 n.7 (1988) (en banc). “Even pro se litigants must comply with the rules of 

court.” Francis v. Francis, 30 Va. App. 584, 591, 518 S.E.2d 842, 846 (1999). 

Father failed to provide us with an adequate appendix to enable us to address his 

assignments of error. Because the appendix filed in this case does not contain a part of the 

record that is essential to the resolution of the issues before us, we affirm the judgment of the 

trial court. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the trial court’s ruling is affirmed. 

Affirmed.