COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Bumgardner 

EDWARD L. MAHLER 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0739-97-3 PER CURIAM 

 JANUARY 27, 1998 

ELAINE P. MAHLER 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY 

Ray W. Grubbs, Judge 

 (Edward L. Mahler, pro se, on briefs). 

 (Sandra L. Wright, on brief), for appellee. 

 Edward L. Mahler (father) appeals from a decision of the 

circuit court granting Elaine P. Mahler (mother) sole legal and 

physical custody of the couple's two minor children; setting 

father's visitation rights; adjusting the amount of child 

support; and holding father in contempt of court based on a show 

cause order filed by mother due to father's failure to pay 

spousal support. Father contends that the trial court (1) erred 

in granting sole custody to mother; (2) abused its discretion in 

not granting more extensive visitation rights to father; (3) 

abused its discretion in relying solely on the guidelines to 

recalculate the child support payments; and (4) erred in 

considering mother's show cause order for contempt during a 

hearing on child custody and visitation matters. Father also 

appeals the entry of a March 19, 1997 qualified domestic 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

relations order. In addition, father attempts to raise issues 

relating to spousal support and attorney's fees stemming from an 

October 1995 hearing that were previously appealed to this Court 

and dismissed by order dated April 15, 1996 (Record 

No. 2935-95-3). 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. 

Child Custody

 "In matters concerning custody and visitation, the welfare 

and best interests of the child are the 'primary, paramount, and 

controlling consideration[s].'" Kogon v. Ulerick, 12 Va. App. 

595, 596, 405 S.E.2d 441, 442 (1991) (citation omitted). 

 In matters of a child's welfare, trial courts 

are vested with broad discretion in making 

the decisions necessary to guard and to 

foster a child's best interests. A trial 

court's determination of matters within its 

discretion is reversible on appeal only for 

an abuse of that discretion, and a trial 

court's decision will not be set aside unless 

plainly wrong or without evidence to support 

it. 

Farley v. Farley, 9 Va. App. 326, 328, 387 S.E.2d 794, 795 (1990) 

(citations omitted). 

 Following an extensive evidentiary hearing, the trial court 

awarded sole custody of the two minor children to mother. The 

court heard, and credited, the testimony of Victoria Cash, a 

clinical social worker who had extensive experience and 

interaction with the children while treating the younger child 
 3 

over a three-year period. Cash testified that the younger child 

often experienced separation anxiety when forced to leave her 

mother to visit father. Based on her extensive experience with 

the children, Cash recommended that mother be given sole custody 

of the children. The court-appointed guardian ad litem also made 

this recommendation to the court, along with very specific 

recommendations on visitation. "[T]he recommendation of [a] 

guardian ad litem . . . while not binding or controlling, should 

not be disregarded." Bottoms v. Bottoms, 249 Va. 410, 420, 457 

S.E.2d 102, 108 (1995). The record demonstrates that the trial 

court allowed father ample opportunity to present evidence 

concerning the custody issue. Father, however, presented 

evidence, such as the natural death of two family pets while in 

mother's possession, that bore no relevance to the best interests 

of the children. See Code § 20-124.3. 

 The evidence supports the trial court's conclusions, and it 

is clear that the decision was made with the best interests of 

the children as the foremost concern. Father has not 

demonstrated that the trial court abused its discretion. 

Visitation Rights

 The trial court's decision on father's visitation rights is 

also reviewed for abuse of discretion and will not be set aside 

unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. See

Farley, 9 Va. App. at 328, 387 S.E.2d at 795. 

 The trial court awarded father visitation on alternate 
 4 

weekends, and two weeks during the summer, one of which was to 

occur during the last week prior to the beginning of the new 

school year. Father also received substantial visitation rights 

during the holidays. The record shows that the trial court 

substantially followed the recommendations of the guardian ad 

litem with respect to father's visitation rights. In fact, the 

trial court deviated from the recommendations by giving father 

more time with the children during various holiday periods, 

including during the children's summer vacation. The visitation 

rights accorded father are entirely reasonable given the 

circumstances of this case. The trial court did not abuse its 

discretion on this issue. 

Child Support

 Father questions the use of the child support guidelines 

contained in Virginia Code § 20-108.2 to determine the award of 

child support in light of "unusual factors," such as large 

contributions to a "mutually agreed charitable organization," 

travel expenses associated with visitation, and the amount of 

spousal support awarded. A child support award based on the 

guidelines is presumptively correct unless the trial court makes 

specific findings to rebut the presumption. See Code 

§ 20-108.1(B). The trial court's rebuttal findings must be based 

on the factors set forth in Code § 20-108.1(B)(1)-(18). Spousal 

support must be added to payee's gross income and subtracted from 

payor's gross income when computing child support under the 
 5 

guidelines. See Code § 20-108.2(C); Frazer v. Frazer, 23 Va. 

App. 358, 380-81, 477 S.E.2d 290, 301 (1996). Father failed to 

present any evidence at the February 20, 1997 hearing regarding 

the two "unusual factors" he now attempts to assert on appeal. 

The trial court, therefore, did not err in failing to make the 

findings required to adjust child support pursuant to Code 

§ 20-108.1. 

 Father also failed to properly and timely object to the 

trial court's calculation of the child support award with respect 

to spousal support. As a result, he has failed to preserve this 

issue for appeal. See Rule 5A:18. Furthermore, the record does 

not reflect any reason to invoke the good cause or ends of 

justice exceptions to Rule 5A:18. 

Show Cause for Contempt

 Father contends that the trial court erred in using the 

child custody and visitation hearing to consider mother's show 

cause motion for contempt for failure to pay child support. The 

trial court found, and the record is clear, that father had more 

than sufficient notice that this issue would be presented at the 

February 20, 1997 hearing. In addition, the court allowed both 

sides an opportunity to present evidence and argument on the 

issue. 

Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO)

 Here, the QDRO was entered pursuant to a June 29, 1995 

property settlement agreement between the parties. Father did 
 6 

not challenge the validity of the agreement or object to the 

entry of the QDRO. Therefore, Rule 5A:18 bars our consideration 

of this question on appeal. Moreover, the record does not 

reflect any reason to invoke the good cause or ends of justice 

exceptions to Rule 5A:18. 

Issues from October 1995

 Father attempts to raise issues arising from a November 17, 

1995 order memorializing an October 1995 hearing which granted 

permanent spousal support and an award of attorney's fees to 

mother. Father appealed that decision. That appeal was 

dismissed by order dated April 15, 1996 because of father's 

failure to prosecute the appeal. These issues are not properly 

before us at this time. 

 We affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

 Affirmed.