Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 20-107.2 (2026)

Court may decree as to custody and support of children

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Upon entry of a decree providing (i) for the dissolution of a marriage, (ii) for a divorce, whether from the bond of matrimony or from bed and board, (iii) that neither party is entitled to a divorce, or (iv) for separate maintenance, the court may make such further decree as it shall deem expedient concerning the (a) custody or visitation and support of the minor children of the parties as provided in Chapter 6.1 (§ 20-124.1 et seq.) or (b) support of a child over the age of 18 who meets the requirements set forth in subsection C of § 20-124.2, including an order that either party or both parties provide health care coverage or cash medical support, or both.

1982, c. 309; 1984, c. 651; 1986, c. 421; 1987, c. 597; 1988, cc. 794, 887; 1989, c. 740; 1991, cc. 60, 545, 588; 1992, cc. 585, 716, 742; 1993, cc. 573, 599, 633; 1994, cc. 719, 769; 1996, c. 331; 2009, c. 713; 2015, cc. 653, 654.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 173 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: Yohay v. Ryan, 359 S.E.2d 320 (Va. Ct. App. 1987).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Yohay v. Ryan, 359 S.E.2d 320 (Va. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 38× “" Code § 20-107.2. In contrast, Code § 20-108 gives the trial court authority to revise and alter support and custody decrees "as the circumstances of the parents and the benefit of the children may require.”

Wilson v. Wilson, 492 S.E.2d 495 (Va. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 32× “" At the time of the court's order, Code § 20-107.2 read, in part: [U]pon decreeing a divorce .”

Wagner v. Wagner, 358 S.E.2d 407 (Va. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 20× “She further argues that the court failed to consider the eight factors listed in Code § 20-107.2(2) when it set the amount of child support.”

Shoup v. Shoup, 556 S.E.2d 783 (Va. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 12× “2d 500, 500 (1971); Code § 20-107.2. The judicial authority granted in divorce matters encompasses the authority to determine child support.”

Dietz v. Dietz, 436 S.E.2d 463 (Va. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 12× “See Code §§ 20-107.2, 20-108.1, 20-108.2; see also Lapidus v.”

Prizzia v. Prizzia, 707 S.E.2d 461 (Va. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 12× “Husband also argues that Code § 20-107.2 did not give the trial court jurisdiction to award child support in this case.”

Ohlen v. Shively, 430 S.E.2d 559 (Va. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 12× “On appeal, mother argues that the trial judge erred by: (1) refusing to grant her motion for a continuance of the trial date; (2) relying on the factors set forth in Code § 20-107.2 to determine that a change of custody was warranted; and (3) ruling that father established a…”

Spagnolo v. Spagnolo, 460 S.E.2d 616 (Va. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 30× “Thus, the trial judge's decision, without explanation, effectively ordered the husband to abide by the portions of the agreement that the judge could not have otherwise ordered, i.e., to pay for the child's college expenses and postminority health insurance.”

Watkinson v. Henley, 409 S.E.2d 470 (Va. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 10× “Once a trial court determines the presumptive amount, it does not decide whether that amount is “unjust or inappropriate” without considering the amount in relation to the factors set forth in Code §§ 20-107.2 and 20-108.1. While a particular amount may appear to be “just and…”

Richardson v. Richardson, 401 S.E.2d 894 (Va. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 8× “We conclude that the presumptive amount determined from the statute must be awarded unless, because of evidence of one or more factors enumerated in Code §§ 20-107.2 and 20-108.1, such amount is “unjust or inappropriate.”

Hughes v. Gentry, 443 S.E.2d 448 (Va. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 8× “In his letter opinion, the chancellor renewed his appeal to Hughes and Gentry to put aside their differences for Brandon's sake.”

Riggins v. O'BRIEN, 559 S.E.2d 673 (Va. 2002). · cites it 8× “Code § 20-107.2. Thereafter, the court may, from time to time, "revise and alter such decree .”

Show all 173 citing cases →

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-107.2(1) — 8 cases

Yohay v. Ryan, 359 S.E.2d 320 (Va. Ct. App. 1987). “" Code § 20-107.2. In contrast, Code § 20-108 gives the trial court authority to revise and alter support and custody decrees "as the circumstances of the parents and the benefit of the children may require.”

Venable v. Venable, 342 S.E.2d 646 (Va. Ct. App. 1986).

Robinson v. Robinson, 361 S.E.2d 356 (Va. Ct. App. 1987).

Wilson v. Wilson, 408 S.E.2d 576 (Va. Ct. App. 1991).

Cousins v. Cousins, 360 S.E.2d 882 (Va. Ct. App. 1987).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-107.2(2) — 16 cases

Wagner v. Wagner, 358 S.E.2d 407 (Va. Ct. App. 1987). “She further argues that the court failed to consider the eight factors listed in Code § 20-107.2(2) when it set the amount of child support.”

Young v. Young, 348 S.E.2d 46 (Va. Ct. App. 1986).

O'brien v. Rose, 420 S.E.2d 246 (Va. Ct. App. 1992).

D'Auria v. D'Auria, 340 S.E.2d 164 (Va. Ct. App. 1986).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-107.2(2)(d) — 1 case

Watkinson v. Henley, 409 S.E.2d 470 (Va. Ct. App. 1991). “Once a trial court determines the presumptive amount, it does not decide whether that amount is “unjust or inappropriate” without considering the amount in relation to the factors set forth in Code §§ 20-107.2 and 20-108.1. While a particular amount may appear to be “just and…”

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-107.2(2)(f) — 2 cases

Young v. Young, 348 S.E.2d 46 (Va. Ct. App. 1986).

Baumgartner v. Moore, 419 S.E.2d 291 (Va. Ct. App. 1992).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-107.2(2)(h) — 7 cases

Spagnolo v. Spagnolo, 460 S.E.2d 616 (Va. Ct. App. 1995). “Thus, the trial judge's decision, without explanation, effectively ordered the husband to abide by the portions of the agreement that the judge could not have otherwise ordered, i.e., to pay for the child's college expenses and postminority health insurance.”

Hur v. Virginia Dep't of Soc. Servs. Ex Rel. Klopp, 409 S.E.2d 454 (Va. Ct. App. 1991).

Riggins v. O'BRIEN, 538 S.E.2d 320 (Va. Ct. App. 2000).

Slonka v. Pennline, 440 S.E.2d 423 (Va. Ct. App. 1994).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-107.2(7) — 3 cases

Warren P. Denise v. Philip C. Tencer, 617 S.E.2d 413 (Va. Ct. App. 2005).

Ohlen v. Shively, 430 S.E.2d 559 (Va. Ct. App. 1993). “On appeal, mother argues that the trial judge erred by: (1) refusing to grant her motion for a continuance of the trial date; (2) relying on the factors set forth in Code § 20-107.2 to determine that a change of custody was warranted; and (3) ruling that father established a…”

Philip C. Tencer v. Warren P. Denise (Va. Ct. App. 2005).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-107.2(A) — 4 cases

Saundra L Ash v. Raymond D Ash (Va. Ct. App. 2002).

Jacqueline Ann Lesesne v. Thaddeus John Zablocki (Va. Ct. App. 2007).

James Jospeh Ledwith v. Beth Faber Ledwith (Va. Ct. App. 2004).

Beth Faber Ledwith v. James Joseph Ledwith (Va. Ct. App. 2004).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-107.2(A)(3)(d) — 1 case

Holden v. Holden, 520 S.E.2d 842 (Va. Ct. App. 1999).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-107.2(C) — 1 case

Julie Ann Hughes v. Troy Alexander Hughes (Va. Ct. App. 2013).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-107.2(G) — 1 case

Keyser v. Keyser, 374 S.E.2d 698 (Va. Ct. App. 1988).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-107.2(d) — 1 case

Ackerson v. Ackerson, 22 Va. Cir. 215 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1990).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-107.2(iii) — 1 case

Prizzia v. Prizzia, 707 S.E.2d 461 (Va. Ct. App. 2011). “Husband also argues that Code § 20-107.2 did not give the trial court jurisdiction to award child support in this case.”

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-107.2(l)(c) — 1 case

Crute v. Crute, 12 Va. Cir. 190 (Henrico Cir. Ct. 1988).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.