COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Kelsey, Petty and Senior Judge Bumgardner 

KIRKLAND L. HICKS 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* 

v. Record No. 0767-09-4 PER CURIAM 

 FEBRUARY 9, 2010 

ERICA SMITH-INGRAM, F/K/A 

 ERICA SMITH-HICKS 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY 

Benjamin N. A. Kendrick, Judge 

 (Kirkland L. Hicks, pro se, on brief). 

 (Erica Smith-Ingram, pro se, on brief). 

 *

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

 Kirkland L. Hicks (father) appeals a child support order. Father argues that the trial court 

erred by (1) not considering the time period for which he had temporary custody of the parties’ child 

and not including the payments he made to Erica Smith-Ingram (mother) to offset any amount of 

child support arrears owed, and (2) not crediting father for private school tuition payments he made 

while he had temporary custody of the child. Mother presents two questions of cross-error. She 

argues that the trial court erred by (1) failing to order father to pay reasonable costs for a therapeutic 

program for the children, and (2) denying her request for attorney’s fees. 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. See Rule 5A:27. 

BACKGROUND 

 Mother and father married in 1995 and divorced in 1999. They have two children, both 

of whom were born prior to the marriage. On December 23, 1999, the trial court entered the 
- 2 -

 

final decree of divorce, and awarded the parties joint legal custody of the minor children with 

primary physical custody to mother. Father was ordered to pay $1,314 per month in child 

support. 

 In March 2007, mother filed a petition to modify child support. Father subsequently filed 

a motion to modify support and a motion to modify custody and visitation. In September 2007, 

the Arlington County Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court (the J&DR court) awarded 

father temporary sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ oldest child.1

 After being 

awarded temporary custody and enrolling the child in private school, father decreased his child 

support payments to mother. In September 2007, father paid $1,007 for child support. From 

October 2007 until May 2008, father paid $700 per month in child support. He also paid 

$13,795 for private school tuition and $900 for a school assessed laptop computer fee.2 In June 

2008, father paid mother $350 in child support. 

 On June 16, 2008, the J&DR court awarded custody of both children to mother and 

ordered father to pay $2,090.89 per month in child support. The J&DR court held that there 

were no arrearages owed. Mother appealed the J&DR court ruling. 

From July 2008 through September 2008 and in December 2008 and February 2009, 

father paid $2,090.89 per month for child support. In October 2008, father paid $2,230.89, and 

in November 2008 and January 2009, father paid $2,190.89 per month. 

 On February 12, 2009, the trial court found that father owed mother $29,272.42 in child 

support arrears for the period from March 2007 until June 2008. Father timely noted his appeal. 

1

 Mother retained physical custody of the parties’ youngest child. 

2

 The child was expelled from school in May 2008, prior to the completion of the 

academic year, so father received a refund of $990.91. 
- 3 -

ANALYSIS 

 A statement of facts, which summarized the procedural history and father’s child support 

payment history, was prepared and accepted by the court. The statement of facts did not discuss any 

motions or arguments of counsel, nor did it state any objections of counsel to the judge’s findings or 

rulings. An appellant has 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). 

 Father signed the final order and objected to the trial court’s ruling because there was no 

notice that mother was appealing the “retroactive child support” and the trial court had no 

jurisdiction. Father did not note his objections to the calculation of the arrears, specifically that the 

trial court did not credit him for the time that he had custody of one child and his payments toward 

private school. 

 Mother did not note any objections to the final order. Her issues regarding the payment of a 

therapeutic program and request for attorney’s fees were not mentioned in the statement of facts. 

 “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, except for good 

cause shown or to enable the Court of Appeals to attain the ends of justice.” Rule 5A:18. We 

“will not consider an argument on appeal which was not presented to the trial court.” Ohree v. 

Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 299, 308, 494 S.E.2d 484, 488 (1998). “The purpose of Rule 

5A:18 is to allow the trial court to correct in the trial court any error that is called to its 

attention.” Lee v. Lee, 12 Va. App. 512, 514, 404 S.E.2d 736, 737 (1991) (en banc). 

 Neither mother nor father preserved their issues for appeal under Rule 5A:18. Father 

argues that this Court should overlook any procedural defaults and invoke the good cause and 

ends of justice exceptions to Rule 5A:18. Mother also asks this Court to invoke the exceptions to 
- 4 - 

Rule 5A:18 and consider her argument regarding payment of the therapeutic program.3

 “In order 

to avail oneself of the [good cause] exception, a defendant must affirmatively show a miscarriage 

of justice has occurred, not that a miscarriage might have occurred.” Redman v. Commonwealth, 

25 Va. App. 215, 221, 487 S.E.2d 269, 272 (1997) (citing Mounce v. Commonwealth, 4 

Va. App. 433, 436, 357 S.E.2d 742, 744 (1987)). There was no miscarriage of justice in this 

case, and the ends of justice exception does not apply. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the trial court’s ruling is summarily affirmed. Rule 5A:27. 

Affirmed.

 3

 Mother does not ask the Court to invoke the exceptions regarding the court’s denial of 

an award of attorney’s fees. “We will not consider, sua sponte, a ‘miscarriage of justice’ 

argument under Rule 5A:18.” Edwards v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 752, 761, 589 S.E.2d 

444, 448 (2003) (en banc).