COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Annunziata, Agee and Senior Judge Coleman
MICHAEL ALEXANDER MAHONEY, SR.
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 2269-99-4 PER CURIAM
MARCH 6, 2001
JEANNE MARGUERITE MAHONEY
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY
Paul F. Sheridan, Judge
(Michael A. Mahoney, Sr., pro se, on brief).
(John R. Angus; Weiner, Weiner & Weiner,
P.C., on brief), for appellee.
Michael A. Mahoney, Sr. (father) appeals the decision of the
circuit court ordering him to pay the premiums for his minor
children's health insurance and to pay child support to Jeanne M.
Mahoney (mother). On appeal, father contends that the circuit
court did not have personal jurisdiction (Issues I and II). He
also challenges a show cause order that was not a part of the
circuit court case (Issues IV and VI), and requests that as the
primary insured he be allowed to review medical expenses for his
minor children on his insurance policy (Issue V). Father also
contends that the circuit court erred by imputing income to him
for the purpose of calculating child support payments (Issue III).
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
On appeal, mother moves to strike the questions presented
by father and to strike or disregard portions of father's
appendix. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we
conclude that this appeal is without merit and, therefore, we need
not rule on mother's motions. Accordingly, we summarily affirm
the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27.
On appeal, we view the evidence and all reasonable
inferences in the light most favorable to appellee as the party
prevailing below. See McGuire v. McGuire, 10 Va. App. 248, 250,
391 S.E.2d 344, 346 (1990).
Procedural Background
In December, 1995, the juvenile and domestic relations
district court (juvenile court) awarded mother child and spousal
support from father. In December, 1998, the juvenile court
reduced the child support obligation and father appealed to the
circuit court. The circuit court held a de novo hearing on
August 26, 1999 on the father's motion to reduce support. The
trial court imputed income to father based on his earnings at
the time of his extradition to Virginia from Mississippi in
July, 1998. The trial court reduced father's child support
obligation to $789 per month for the period of October 1, 1998
to July 31, 1999, and $600 per month beginning on August 1,
1999. Father was also required to maintain health insurance on
the minor children at a cost of $225 per month.
- 2 -
I., II., IV. through VI.
"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.
Father contends that the circuit court had not acquired
personal jurisdiction. However, father made a general
appearance which conferred personal jurisdiction by the court
over him and he did not object to jurisdiction of the circuit
court on any other basis. Father, therefore, waived his
objections to the court's exercise of personal jurisdiction.
The show cause order father objects to was filed after the
August 26, 1999 circuit court decision that is the subject of
this appeal. The issue of father's right to review his
children's medical bills was not raised at trial.
Accordingly, Rule 5A:18 bars our consideration of these
questions on appeal. Moreover, the record does not reflect any
reason to invoke the good cause or ends of justice exceptions to
Rule 5A:18.
III.
Father contends that the trial court erred by imputing
income to him for the purpose of calculating his child support
obligation for the time that he has been incarcerated. Father
was incarcerated for failure to pay his court-ordered support
obligations. The trial court found that father's lack of
- 3 -
employment was voluntary and imputed income to him for that
reason. The trial court also found that father's actions caused
the sheriff to deny him work release while incarcerated.
"A trial court has discretion to impute income to either or both
the custodial or noncustodial parent who is voluntarily
unemployed." Bennett v. Commonwealth, 22 Va. App. 684, 691, 472
S.E.2d 668, 672 (1996), see Code § 20-108.1(B)(3). Father is
incarcerated and unemployed due to his failure to pay his
existing support obligations. The trial court did not err by
imputing income to father for the purpose of calculating his
child support obligation.
Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily
affirmed.
Affirmed.
- 4 -