Virginia C. Wilson v. Darick A. Dodson
1738163
| Va. Ct. App. | Mar 14, 2017Background
- Parents (Wilson and Dodson) share one child; JDR court initially ordered support and $5/mo toward $755.55 arrears.
- Wilson moved to amend seeking higher support; JDR increased support to $170/mo (effective Aug 1, 2016) and continued $5/mo toward arrears, though the JDR found the guideline amount would be $338.35.
- JDR and circuit courts found the presumptive guideline amount unjust or inappropriate and departed downward because Dodson had recently been incarcerated, had limited earning capacity from a felony conviction, was making good-faith employment efforts, and was supporting four other children.
- Dodson testified to average monthly income of about $1,200 and submitted paystubs showing deductions for support of other children.
- Wilson appealed to the circuit court, which affirmed the JDR court’s downward deviation; Wilson appealed to this Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred in deviating from presumptive child support guidelines | Wilson: downward deviation was improper; award insufficient to meet the child’s needs and court relied on net rather than gross income | Dodson: deviation appropriate due to limited earning capacity from felony, recent incarceration, support payments for other children, and good-faith employment efforts | Court: Affirmed deviation as appropriate; trial courts may consider those factors and found the presumptive guideline unjust and inappropriate |
| Whether arrears were improperly handled | Wilson: argued arrears were not addressed and should be remedied | Dodson: JDR/circuit treated arrears as continuing $5/mo payment consistent with prior order | Court: Did not reverse; affirmed trial court order; did not find reversible error regarding arrears and noted appellant’s briefing failed to preserve/adequately argue errors |
Key Cases Cited
- Niblett v. Niblett, 65 Va. App. 616 (discussing standard of review and best interest of the child in support awards)
- Congdon v. Congdon, 40 Va. App. 255 (standard for reviewing family-court factual findings)
- Stiles v. Stiles, 48 Va. App. 449 (best-interest focus in child support determinations)
- Lutes v. Alexander, 14 Va. App. 1075 (burden on appellant to show reversible error)
- Buchanan v. Buchanan, 14 Va. App. 53 (unsupported assertions of error do not merit appellate consideration)
- Fitzgerald v. Bass, 6 Va. App. 38 (appellate court will not comb the record to find errors for appellant)
- Francis v. Francis, 30 Va. App. 584 (pro se litigants must comply with court rules)
- Fadness v. Fadness, 52 Va. App. 833 (appellate duty to present errors with legal authority)
- Parks v. Parks, 52 Va. App. 663 (consequence of failing to present legal authority for claimed errors)