COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judges Benton and Annunziata 

Argued at Alexandria, Virginia 

TRACY AUSTIN 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 0043-00-4 JUDGE ROSEMARIE ANNUNZIATA 

 OCTOBER 17, 2000 

THOMAS ALBERT STANLEY 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY 

Jane Marum Roush, Judge 

 Donna Porter Gair (Porter & Gair, P.C., on 

briefs), for appellant. 

 Thomas A. Stanley, pro se. 

 Appellant, Tracy Austin, appeals from an order of the trial 

court regarding modification of child support. She contends the 

court erred in both imputing her pre-retirement income to her 

and in relying on her new spouse's income as a basis for 

deviating from the guideline support amount. She also contends 

that no evidence supports the specific amount by which the court 

deviated from the guideline amount and that the court failed to 

state its findings in writing. Appellee, Thomas Stanley, 

alleges that Austin failed to preserve these issues for review 

in accordance with Rule 5A:18, and therefore this Court is 

 

 * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code 

§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.
foreclosed from reviewing them on their merits. We agree with 

Stanley's argument and affirm the decision of the trial court. 

Rule 5A:18, states: "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 . . . ." At the bottom of the order of modification of 

child support at issue in this case, in the section entitled, 

"Objections of Complainant," Austin stated the following: 

After deviating from the child support 

guidelines by imputing full income to 

Complainant, thus deeming Complainant to be 

fully self-supporting, the Court on its own 

motion further deviated by adding $250.00 to 

amount due from Complainant each month based 

on "substantial assistance from new husband 

for basic needs, such as housing, food, 

etc." without evidence or law to support 

such a finding. 

No other objection is cited in the record or the statement of 

facts filed in support of this appeal. 

We hold that Austin failed to preserve the issues she 

raises on appeal. First, she failed to specify the grounds for 

her objection to the trial court's ruling that based on 

"substantial assistance from [Austin's] new husband" a deviation 

in the amount of $250 was warranted. The "mere statement that 

the judgment [of the trial court] . . . is contrary to the law 

and the evidence is not sufficient to constitute a question to 

be ruled upon on appeal." Rule 5A:18; see also Lee v. Lee, 12 

Va. App. 512, 515, 404 S.E.2d 736, 738 (1991). In addition, 

 - 2 - 
Austin made no objection whatsoever with respect to any failure 

by the trial court to make written findings justifying its 

departure from the guidelines. These issues were therefore not 

properly preserved for appeal. See Rule 5A:18. Furthermore, 

because good cause has not been shown and the record fails to 

affirmatively disclose that a miscarriage of justice has 

occurred, see Mounce v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 433, 436, 357 

S.E.2d 742, 744 (1987), we decline to address the issues raised 

and affirm the decision of the trial court. 

 Affirmed. 

 - 3 -