COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judges Willis and Annunziata 

Argued at Alexandria, Virginia 

AHMAD DJADALI 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 0301-98-4 JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR. 

 OCTOBER 27, 1998 

FARZANEH DJADALI 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY 

F. Bruce Bach, Judge 

 James B. Pattison for appellant. 

 William J. Lyden (The Law Firm of Evan H. 

Farr, P.C., on brief), for appellee. 

 Ahmad Djadali contends that the trial court erred: (1) in 

incorporating into the final divorce decree provisions denying 

child support; and (2) in refusing to grant a hearing on the 

issue of child support during the divorce proceeding. We affirm. 

 On May 23, 1997, Ahmad Djadali filed suit for divorce from 

his wife, Farzaneh Djadali. They have one child, Helal Al-Dean 

(Kevin) Djadali. The couple agreed that Ahmad was to have 

physical custody of Kevin. 

 In 1993, the couple entered into a separation agreement, 

which remained effective by its terms. The 1993 agreement 

provides, in relevant part: 

 It is agreed by the parties that both parties 

are responsible for the support of their 

minor child. It is further stated that the 

party who does not have physical custody of 

the child shall pay to the party with 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

physical custody of the child the sum of 

$ 0.00 per month for the support and 

maintenance of the infant child of the 

parties. 

 The husband petitioned the Prince William County Juvenile 

and Domestic Relations District Court for child support. By 

consent order entered February 22, 1996, the juvenile and 

domestic relations court denied support in accordance with the 

separation agreement. 

 By pendente lite order entered on July 30, 1997, the trial 

court incorporated the 1993 agreement and the 1996 consent order 

and denied support. At the hearing on the final divorce decree, 

the trial court ruled that the support issue had been fully and 

fairly litigated at the pendente lite hearing. It refused to 

rehear the support issue and incorporated the support provisions 

of the pendente lite order into the final divorce decree. 

 The pendente lite order shows on its face that the trial 

court heard evidence from the parties on the merits of child 

support. It calculated the presumptive support according to the 

statutory guidelines and stated in writing its findings and 

reasons for varying from the guideline amount. This record 

supports the trial court's ruling that the issue of child support 

was fully and fairly litigated at the pendente lite hearing. We 

have before us no other record of that hearing, and nothing 

before us disputes the trial court's ruling. 

 We have before us no proffer of the circumstances underlying 

the child support ruling at the pendente lite hearing and no 
- 3 - 

proffer of any material circumstances justifying a change in that 

determination. The record reflects no such proffer to the trial 

court at the hearing on the final divorce decree. Thus, we find 

no abuse of discretion in the trial court's refusal to reopen the 

case and to reconsider a decided issue. 

 The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

 Affirmed.