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.
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
- 2 -
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.
- 3 -