COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick
MITCHELL DUANE NORMAN
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 1044-96-1 PER CURIAM
JANUARY 7, 1997
AMELIA LOUISE PAIR NORMAN
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY
Westbrook J. Parker, Judge
(Mitchell D. Norman, pro se, on briefs).
(H. K. Reveley, Jr., on brief), for appellee.
Mitchell Duane Norman (father) appeals the decision of the
circuit court modifying the amount of child support paid to
Amelia Louise Pair Norman (mother) and deciding other issues.
Father contends that the trial court erred by: (1) including the
child's private school tuition as child care; (2) failing to
uphold the terms of the parties' property settlement agreement;
and (3) applying incorrect wage and medical insurance costs.
Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude
that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily
affirm the decision of the trial court. Rule 5A:27.
Issues (1) and (3)
"No ruling of the trial court . . . will be considered as a
basis for reversal unless the objection was stated together with
the grounds therefor at the time of the ruling . . . ." Rule
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
5A:18. The Court of Appeals will not consider an argument on
appeal which was not presented to the trial court. Jacques v.
Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 591, 593, 405 S.E.2d 630, 631 (1991).
The order from which appellant appeals was entered April 2,
1996 nunc pro tunc November 21, 1995. Appellant endorsed the
decree "Seen and Objected to." Neither the decree nor the
written statement of facts filed in this matter indicate that
husband raised the arguments which form the basis of his appeal
of the court's child support ruling. "We cannot assume that
appellant's objection and reasons were proffered but not made a
part of the record. Rule 5A:8 requires appellant to present a
complete transcript for this Court to consider his or her issues
on appeal." Lee v. Lee, 12 Va. App. 512, 516, 404 S.E.2d 736,
738 (1991) (reh'g en banc).
Accordingly, Rule 5A:18 bars appellate consideration of
husband's challenges to the child support ruling. Moreover, the
record does not reflect any reason to invoke the good cause or
ends of justice exceptions to Rule 5A:18.
Issue (2)
Father alleged that mother violated the court's property
settlement decree because she failed to return father's family
Bible or to share the children's baby books and photographs.
Father moved to hold mother in contempt. This issue was
preserved for appeal. Code § 8.01-384.
"A trial court 'has the authority to hold [an] offending
2
party in contempt for acting in bad faith or for willful
disobedience of its order.'" Alexander v. Alexander, 12 Va. App.
691, 696, 406 S.E.2d 666, 669 (1991) (citation omitted). Whether
to grant a motion for contempt is a matter left to the discretion
of the trial court which will not be reversed on appeal in the
absence of an abuse of that discretion. See Wells v. Wells, 12
Va. App. 31, 36, 401 S.E.2d 891, 894 (1991).
As the party seeking reversal on appeal, father bore the
burden to establish by the record proof that the court abused its
discretion when it refused to hold mother in contempt. The
record indicates that mother returned the Bible and one baby book
to father. Furthermore, the statement of facts contains no
rationale for the court's ruling on the motion. Under the
circumstances, we cannot say that the record demonstrates that
the court abused its discretion by denying father's motion.
Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily
affirmed.
Affirmed.
3