COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Humphreys, Be ales and Senior Judge Fitzpatrick

ABDERRAHIM NAAMAN MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 2240-06-4 PER CURIAM MAY 8, 2007 SAHAR LARRAZABAL

FROM THE CIRCUIT COUR T OF FAIRFAX COUNTY M. Langhorne Keith, Judge (Kenneth H. Rosenau; Rosenau & Rosenau, on brief), for appellant. (Lynn E. Berry; Rebecca Rom o, Third-Year Law Student; Becker, Hadeed, Kellogg & Berry, P.C. , on brief), for appellee.

Abderrahim Naaman (father) ap peals from the circuit court’ s August 4, 2006 custody, visitation, and support order awar ding sole custody of the parties’ child to Sahar Larrazabal (mother). On appeal, father conten ds the evidence is insufficient to support the court’s decision. Upon reviewing the record and briefs, we conclude th at this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decisi on of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27. “The Court of Appeals will not consider an argument on appeal which was not presented

to the trial court.” Ohree v. Commonwealth , 26 Va. App. 299, 308, 494 S.E.2d 484, 488 (1998).

See Rule 5A:18. The bare assertion that an award is “contrary to the law and the evidence is not sufficient to constitute a question to be rule d upon on appeal.” Rule 5A:18. “[E]ndorsing a decree ‘seen and objected to’ does not preserve an issue for appeal unless the record further reveals that the issue was prope rly raised for consideration by the trial court.” Twardy v. Twardy , 14 Va. App. 651, 657, 419 S.E.2d 848, 851 (1992) ( en banc ).

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.- 2 - Although father asserts he preserved his quest ion presented in his obj ections to the trial court’s order, a review of this document rev eals he endorsed the order “seen and objected to” with only the following elaboration: “The judge ’s ruling was an abuse of discretion and plain error. The court’s ruling was without sufficient evidence.” The court’s order addressed custody, visitation, and support issues. Although father obj ected generally to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial cour t’s order, he failed to specify his objections. Rule 5A:18 requires that objections to a tria l court’s action or ruling be made with specificity in order to preserve an issue for appeal. See Campbell v. Commonwealth , 12 Va. App. 476, 480, 405 S.E.2d 1, 2 (1991) ( en banc ). A trial court must be alerted to the precise issue to which a party objects. See Neal v. Commonwealth , 15 Va. App. 416, 422-23, 425 S.E.2d 521, 525 (1992). Father also indicates he preserved his objecti ons in the extract of the proceedings, written statement of facts, and several exhibits. Howeve r, in fact, the issue ra ised on appeal is not addressed in any of these locations. Because the requirements of Rule 5A:18 have not been met, we will not consider this question on appeal. Although Rule 5A:18 allows exceptions for good cause or to meet the ends of justice, appe llant does not argue that we should invoke these exceptions. See e.g. , Redman v. Commonwealth , 25 Va. App. 215, 221, 487 S.E.2d 269, 272 (1997) (“In order to avail oneself of the exception, a defendant must affirmatively show that a miscarriage of justice has occurr ed, not that a miscarriage might have occurred.” (emphasis added)). We will not consider, sua sponte , a “miscarriage of justice” argument under Rule 5A:18.

Edwards v. Commonwealth , 41 Va. App. 752, 761, 589 S.E.2d 444, 448 (2003) ( en banc ). Accordingly, the judgment of the tr ial court is summarily affirmed.

Affirmed.