COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick 

MITCHELL DUANE NORMAN 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1044-96-1 PER CURIAM 

 JANUARY 7, 1997 

AMELIA LOUISE PAIR NORMAN 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY 

Westbrook J. Parker, Judge 

 (Mitchell D. Norman, pro se, on briefs). 

 (H. K. Reveley, Jr., on brief), for appellee. 

 Mitchell Duane Norman (father) appeals the decision of the 

circuit court modifying the amount of child support paid to 

Amelia Louise Pair Norman (mother) and deciding other issues. 

Father contends that the trial court erred by: (1) including the 

child's private school tuition as child care; (2) failing to 

uphold the terms of the parties' property settlement agreement; 

and (3) applying incorrect wage and medical insurance costs. 

Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude 

that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily 

affirm the decision of the trial court. Rule 5A:27. 

Issues (1) and (3)

 "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 . . . ." Rule 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

5A:18. The Court of Appeals will not consider an argument on 

appeal which was not presented to the trial court. Jacques v. 

Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 591, 593, 405 S.E.2d 630, 631 (1991). 

 The order from which appellant appeals was entered April 2, 

1996 nunc pro tunc November 21, 1995. Appellant endorsed the 

decree "Seen and Objected to." Neither the decree nor the 

written statement of facts filed in this matter indicate that 

husband raised the arguments which form the basis of his appeal 

of the court's child support ruling. "We cannot assume that 

appellant's objection and reasons were proffered but not made a 

part of the record. Rule 5A:8 requires appellant to present a 

complete transcript for this Court to consider his or her issues 

on appeal." Lee v. Lee, 12 Va. App. 512, 516, 404 S.E.2d 736, 

738 (1991) (reh'g en banc). 

 Accordingly, Rule 5A:18 bars appellate consideration of 

husband's challenges to the child support ruling. Moreover, the 

record does not reflect any reason to invoke the good cause or 

ends of justice exceptions to Rule 5A:18. 

Issue (2)

 Father alleged that mother violated the court's property 

settlement decree because she failed to return father's family 

Bible or to share the children's baby books and photographs. 

Father moved to hold mother in contempt. This issue was 

preserved for appeal. Code § 8.01-384. 

 "A trial court 'has the authority to hold [an] offending 
 3 

party in contempt for acting in bad faith or for willful 

disobedience of its order.'" Alexander v. Alexander, 12 Va. App. 

691, 696, 406 S.E.2d 666, 669 (1991) (citation omitted). Whether 

to grant a motion for contempt is a matter left to the discretion 

of the trial court which will not be reversed on appeal in the 

absence of an abuse of that discretion. See Wells v. Wells, 12 

Va. App. 31, 36, 401 S.E.2d 891, 894 (1991). 

 As the party seeking reversal on appeal, father bore the 

burden to establish by the record proof that the court abused its 

discretion when it refused to hold mother in contempt. The 

record indicates that mother returned the Bible and one baby book 

to father. Furthermore, the statement of facts contains no 

rationale for the court's ruling on the motion. Under the 

circumstances, we cannot say that the record demonstrates that 

the court abused its discretion by denying father's motion. 

 Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily 

affirmed. 

 Affirmed.