COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Overton and Senior Judge Baker*

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia 

ROBERT MICHAEL EWING 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION** BY 

v. Record No. 1461-97-1 JUDGE RICHARD S. BRAY 

 AUGUST 11, 1998 

PATRICIA LYNN EWING 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF CHESAPEAKE 

Russell I. Townsend, Jr., Judge 

 Robert M. Ewing, pro se. 

 Patricia L. Ewing, pro se. 

 The instant cause was before the trial court upon motion of 

Robert Michael Ewing (father) seeking a reduction of child 

support previously awarded to Patricia Lynn Ewing (mother). 

Father alleged changed circumstances arising from "significant 

reduction of [his] income . . . coupled with a substantial 

increase in [mother's] income . . . ." Finding the requisite 

change in circumstances, the court reduced the earlier award but, 

nevertheless, aggrieved father by imputing income to him and 

otherwise calculating the modified support. Father appeals, 

alleging numerous substantive and procedural errors. Finding no 

error, we affirm the order. 

 

 *Judge Baker participated in the hearing and decision of 

this case prior to the effective date of his retirement on July 

31, 1998 and thereafter by his designation as senior judge 

pursuant to Code § 17-116.01. 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

 The parties are fully conversant with the record, and this 

memorandum opinion recites only those facts necessary for 

disposition of the appeal. 

 In accordance with well established principles, we review 

the evidence in the "light most favorable to the party prevailing 

below," mother in this instance. Pommerenke v. Pommerenke, 7 Va. 

App. 241, 244, 372 S.E.2d 630, 631 (1988) (citation omitted). 

When the court hears the evidence ore tenus, "its finding is 

entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed unless plainly 

wrong or without evidence to support it." Id. A presumption 

exists that the court properly considered the evidence and 

applied the law. See Williams v. Williams, 14 Va. App. 217, 221, 

415 S.E.2d 252, 254 (1992). 

 Father initially contends that the court erroneously 

departed from the statutory guidelines of Code § 20-108.2 by 

imputing income to him without ascertaining the "presumptively 

correct amount" and properly explaining the deviation. Father's 

arguments, however, are belied by the record. 

 A trial court addressing a material change in circumstances 

which requires modification of the original support order must 

first calculate the presumptive amount fixed by the statutory 

guidelines, deviating only after concluding, with written 

justification, that such award would be "unjust or inappropriate" 

in consideration of those factors specified in Code § 20-108.1. 

See Watkinson v. Henley, 13 Va. App. 151, 158, 409 S.E.2d 470, 
- 3 - 

473-74 (1991); Code §§ 20-108.1, -108.2. Here, the record 

discloses that the court expressly found the requisite changed 

circumstances and that the loss of father's income would reduce 

his guideline obligation to "zero."1

 However, in consideration 

of father's recent employment and earnings history, the court 

departed from the guidelines by imputing income to him, a finding 

sufficiently justified by the court in the disputed order which 

must be affirmed, if supported by the evidence. See Code 

§ 20-108.1(B)(3), (11), (12). 

 It is well established that a parent may not voluntarily or 

neglectfully compromise income to the detriment of support 

obligations to children. Brody v. Brody, 16 Va. App. 647, 651, 

432 S.E.2d 20, 22 (1993); see also Auman v. Auman, 21 Va. App. 

275, 279, 464 S.E.2d 154, 156 (1995). Thus, income may be 

imputed to a parent to promote the welfare of his or her children 

through a support order reasonable and appropriate to the 

circumstances. See Code § 20-108.1(B)(3), (11), (12). In 

addition to the several statutory factors relevant to imputation, 

we have also recognized "recent past earnings" as a relevant 

consideration. Brody, 16 Va. App. at 651, 432 S.E.2d at 22; see

Code § 20-108.1(B)(3), (11), (12). 

 Here, father is an articulate, educated professional, with 

 

 1Father did not properly preserve an objection to the 

omission of this calculation from the order, and we decline to 

consider this issue on appeal. See Jacques v. Commonwealth, 12 

Va. App. 591, 593, 405 S.E.2d 630, 631 (1991); Rule 5A:18. 
- 4 - 

marketable skills evidenced by recent, well compensated 

employment. Although without work at the time of the hearing, 

father had been employed during the preceding year pursuant to a 

contract which had ended in accordance with its terms only 

several weeks previously. He offered little evidence of a job 

search either in anticipation of or after termination. Such 

evidence, when considered with the entire record, justified the 

imputation of $40,000 annual income to father, a sum less than 

his most recent earnings and reasonable under the circumstances. 

 Father further complains that the trial court prevented him 

from presenting evidence pertinent to the imputation issue. 

However, we are unable to consider this question because father 

failed to proffer or avouch such evidence for the record, thereby 

precluding proper appellate review for error. See Smith v. 

Hylton, 14 Va. App. 354, 357-58, 416 S.E.2d 712, 715 (1992). 

 Father next argues that the court incorrectly determined his 

child support obligation by failing to deduct previously ordered 

spousal support from his gross income, by requiring him to share 

"ordinary" medical expenses in addition to fixed support and by 

adding expenses of "child care" not in evidence. Our review of 

the record does not disclose an obligation of spousal support of 

father to mother or an imposition of medical expenses contrary to 

statute, and mother's uncontroverted testimony sufficiently 

established monthly child care expenses of $141. Hence, we find 

no merit in father's contentions. 
- 5 - 

 Lastly, father seeks an award of attorney's fees incidental 

to these proceedings. Finding no merit in father's appeal or 

circumstances otherwise supporting his claim, we decline such 

relief. 

 Accordingly, we affirm the disputed order. 

 Affirmed.