COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Willis, Bray and Annunziata 

Argued at Alexandria, Virginia 

JOHN WILLIAM KENNEY 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 2306-01-4 JUDGE ROSEMARIE ANNUNZIATA 

 AUGUST 13, 2002 

CATHY ANDREA KENNEY 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LOUDOUN COUNTY 

Thomas D. Horne, Judge 

 Matthew S. McConnell for appellant. 

 J. Douglas Griffin for appellee. 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not 

designated for publication.

 On December 19, 2000 the district court ordered John 

William Kenney (father) to pay Cathy Andrea Kenney (mother) the 

amount of $1,287.43 per month to support their children. Due to 

a mathematical error, the court amended its order to require 

father to pay $1,388.80 per month. 

 On January 16, 2001, father filed an emergency motion to 

suspend his child support obligation to his children due to an 

automobile injury. The district court lowered his monthly 

obligation to $600 per month. Father appealed to the circuit 

court. The circuit court denied father's motion to suspend 

child support. It is from this decision that father appeals. 

For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 
Analysis

 Father claims that the evidence does not support the trial 

court's denial of his motion to suspend child support. We 

disagree and, therefore, affirm. 

 "Decisions concerning child support rest within the sound 

discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed on appeal 

unless plainly wrong or unsupported by the evidence." Smith v. 

Smith, 18 Va. App. 427, 433, 444 S.E.2d 269, 274 (1994). It is 

the province of the fact finder to determine the credibility of 

witnesses, their veracity, and the weight to be given their 

testimony. Brown v. Commonwealth, 156 Va. 947, 951, 157 S.E. 

567, 571 (1931). Accordingly, we view the evidence in the light 

most favorable to mother, the party prevailing below on this 

issue. Germek v. Germek, 34 Va. App. 1, 8, 537 S.E.2d 596, 600 

(2000). 

 Where a party seeks to modify child support, he has the 

burden of proving 1) a material change in circumstances since 

the most recent child support order 2) that warrants 

modification of that party's support obligation. Yohay v. Ryan, 

4 Va. App. 559, 359 S.E.2d 320 (1987). To determine whether a 

modification is justified, the trial court must "consider[] the 

present circumstances of both parties and the benefit of the 

children." Watkinson v. Henley, 13 Va. App. 151, 156, 409 

S.E.2d 470, 473 (1991). 

- 2 -
The mere fact of a material change in the 

obligor parent's income, however, does not 

necessarily warrant a reduction in the 

existing child support obligation. The 

[court] is required to consider all the 

factors and guidelines enumerated in the 

Code for making such determinations and 

enter an award appropriate to the 

circumstances as they exist at that time. 

Rawlings v. Rawlings, 20 Va. App. 663, 670, 460 S.E.2d 581, 588 

(1995). For instance, "[w]here appropriate, the court shall 

consider the willingness and availability of the noncustodial 

parent to provide child care personally in determining whether 

child-care costs are necessary or excessive." Code 

§ 20-108.2(F). Furthermore, we bear in mind the well-settled 

rule that in any child support case, "[t]he best interest of the 

child or children is the paramount and guiding principle in 

setting child support . . . ." Watkinson, 13 Va. App. at 158, 

409 S.E.2d at 474. 

 In this case, father claims that he was physically unable 

to care for the children due to an injury he sustained in an 

automobile accident on December 25, 2000. The trial court found 

that father's injury constituted a material change in 

circumstances, but did not justify a modification in support. 

The trial court found that mother was in need and father was 

able to assist in providing for his children, specifically 

noting that father "[sat] idly by while costs of child care 

adversely affect[ed] the mother's ability to provide for the 

children's necessities." The evidence supports this decision. 

- 3 -
 Father claims, however, that the trial court erred in 

determining that he was able to care for his children because 

"[t]here was no evidence produced by [mother] that [he] was 

physically able to watch the Parties' minor children." We 

disagree. 

 Although father testified that his injuries prevented him 

from walking and thus caring for his children, the trial court 

was not required to accept that testimony. See Brown, 156 

Va. at 951, 157 S.E. at 571 (holding that the weight accorded 

testimony is within the discretion of the trier of fact). 

Rather, the trial court, in its discretion, credited the 

testimony of mother, who stated she asked father to provide 

childcare for the children but he refused because "[h]e doesn't 

want to." 

 The court did not credit father's testimony, in part, 

because he had testified dishonestly in response to several 

questions and provided truthful answers only upon further 

examination. At trial, father initially denied several sources 

of income and expenditures that he later acknowledged, upon 

further inquiry. He admitted that he had a checking account 

primarily in his name that he shared with his female roommate, 

although initially testifying that he had no checking account. 

He admitted that he had an account with J.B. Robinson Jewelers 

where he had purchased two 14-karat gold bridal sets for 

$1,699.10 subsequent to his injury, after denying any such debt. 

- 4 -
Finally, he claimed that he had obtained no loans since his 

injury, but then admitted to procuring an automobile loan on 

which he paid $840 per month. 

 Mother also presented evidence that father was able to 

financially support his children but chose to spend his income 

elsewhere. In addition to the expenses noted above, father 

testified that he signed for purchases with his Sears card since 

his injury, that he paid $320 per month on a loan for his Mazda 

Miata, $120 per month for car insurance, and that all his 

monthly automobile payments were current. Mother also testified 

that father expressed a desire to sign over his parental rights 

to avoid paying child support. 

 Finally, the evidence supports the trial court's finding 

that the children needed father's support. Mother testified 

that she was unable to provide the children with needed clothing 

and good meals, that she had borrowed money from all available 

sources, and that she was unsure of how she would pay her 

expenses. She stated that she incurred $322 in work-related 

childcare expenses per week. She testified that she had not 

received any child support, clothing, or anything else from 

father since his injury. Specifically, she recounted that she 

begged father to purchase clothing for the children on his Sears 

card, but he refused. 

- 5 -
 Thus, the evidence at trial adequately supports the trial 

court's decision, and we will not disturb it on appeal. 

Affirmed. 

- 6 -