COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton 

CYNTHIA LUNETTE AVEY 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 3045-96-4 PER CURIAM 

 JULY 8, 1997 

THOMAS GREGG AVEY 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF STAFFORD COUNTY 

James G. Haley, Jr., Judge 

 (Nicholas D. Capousis, on brief), for 

appellant. 

 (Polly B. Knight; McCrary & Knight, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 Cynthia Lunette Avey (mother) appeals the decision of the 

circuit court setting child support payable by Thomas Gregg Avey 

(father). Mother contends the trial court erred by (1) failing 

to provide sufficient written justification for its deviation 

from the statutory child support guidelines; and (2) ordering a 

one month's abatement of child support during the children's 

summer visitation with father. 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. 

Deviation from Guidelines

 "The starting point for a trial court in determining the 

monthly child support obligation of a party is the amount as 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

computed by the schedule found in Code § 20-108.2(B)." 

Richardson v. Richardson, 12 Va. App. 18, 21, 401 S.E.2d 894, 896 

(1991). 

 [A]fter determining the presumptive amount of 

support according to the schedule, the trial 

court may adjust the amount based on the 

factors found in Code §§ 20-107.2 and 

 20-108.1. Deviations from the presumptive 

support obligation must be supported by 

written findings which state why the 

application of the guidelines in the 

particular case would be unjust or 

inappropriate. If the applicability of the 

factors is supported by the evidence and the 

trial judge has not otherwise abused his or 

her discretion, the deviation from the 

presumptive support obligation will be upheld 

on appeal. 

Id. (emphasis deleted). The trial court's written findings must 

be "of enough detail and exactness to allow for effective 

appellate review of the findings." Id. at 22, 401 S.E.2d at 897. 

 In this case, evidence was heard by the commissioner in 

chancery. The commissioner computed the presumptive amount of 

$1,296 in child support pursuant to the guidelines, but 

determined that the statutory amount would be unjust in the 

current case and reduced the award to $1,000. 

 The commissioner's report detailed the factors which were 

considered in connection with the deviation from the presumptive 

guideline amount. In particular, the commissioner noted that 

father paid $96 monthly for life insurance and that the evidence 

suggested a lower cost of living in Minnesota, where mother and 

the children now lived, than in Virginia. The commissioner also 
 3 

considered the parties' income and related tax consequences, 

based upon the evidence presented by the parties, and the 

pendente lite support payment of $800 agreed to by the parties 

after wife had established herself in her new location. After a 

hearing on the parties' exceptions, the trial court affirmed the 

commissioner's recommendation. 

 The commissioner's written findings were detailed and 

addressed specific statutory factors. In considering the tax 

consequences, the commissioner noted that he used the evidence 

presented by the parties and related it to current, not future, 

tax consequences. While it is clear that the commissioner's 

discussion was based in part on certain assumptions, those 

assumptions were conservative estimates based upon the evidence 

designed to quantify, in some manner, the possible tax 

consequences to the parties. 

 Father concedes that the monthly life insurance payment of 

$96 was not pursuant to court order. The evidence presented to 

the commissioner indicated that this payment was an expense 

father incurred for the benefit of the children. Mother did not 

refute father's evidence before the commissioner and does not 

contest the fact of this payment on appeal. Mother argues, 

however, that the commissioner erred by considering the payment 

as a grounds for deviation. Code § 20-108.1(B)(6) expressly 

directs the court to consider "[d]irect payments ordered by the 

court for . . . maintaining life insurance coverage . . . ." The 
 4 

commissioner erroneously believed that father was obligated by 

court order to make this payment. However, because the 

commissioner properly considered this payment as discretionary, 

not mandatory, we do not find that the error tainted the 

commissioner's findings so as to amount to reversible error. 

 The written findings were sufficiently detailed to provide a 

basis for review on appeal and were supported by the evidence. 

We do not find an abuse of discretion in the trial court's award 

of child support. 

 Abatement for Summer Visitation

 In their "Outline of Settlement," dated May 10, 1995, the 

parties agreed that child support would abate during the month 

each summer when father had visitation with the children. This 

provision was included in the commissioner's recommendations and 

incorporated into the final decree. In neither mother's 

exceptions to the commissioner's report nor to the final decree 

did mother contest this provision. The parties did not file a 

transcript of the hearing on exceptions held before the trial 

court. Therefore, the record does not indicate that this 

objection was preserved for appeal, and we do not address it 

further. Rule 5A:18. See Dukelow v. Dukelow, 2 Va. App. 21, 

24-25, 341 S.E.2d 208, 209-10 (1986). 

 Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is 

summarily affirmed. 

 Affirmed.