Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 20-108.1 (2026)

Determination of child or spousal support

✓ current as of May 2026

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

A. In any proceeding on the issue of determining spousal support, the court shall consider all evidence presented relevant to any issues joined in that proceeding. The court's decision shall be rendered based upon the evidence relevant to each individual case.

B. In any proceeding on the issue of determining child support under this title, Title 16.1, or Title 63.2, the court shall consider all evidence presented relevant to any issues joined in that proceeding. The court's decision in any such proceeding shall be rendered upon the evidence relevant to each individual case. However, there shall be a rebuttable presumption in any judicial or administrative proceeding for child support, including cases involving split custody or shared custody, that the amount of the award that would result from the application of the guidelines set out in § 20-108.2 is the correct amount of child support to be awarded. Liability for support shall be determined retroactively for the period measured from the date that the proceeding was commenced by the filing of an action with any court provided the complainant exercised due diligence in the service of the respondent or, if earlier, the date an order of the Department of Social Services entered pursuant to Title 63.2 and directing payment of support was delivered to the sheriff or process server for service on the obligor.

In any case in which the jurisdiction of the juvenile and domestic relations district court has been divested pursuant to § 16.1-244 and no final child support order has been entered, any award for child support in the circuit court shall be retroactive to the date on which the proceeding was commenced by the filing of the action in the juvenile and domestic relations district court, provided that the petitioner exercised due diligence in the service of the respondent.

In order to rebut the presumption, the court shall make written findings in the order, which findings may be incorporated by reference, that the application of such guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate in a particular case. The finding that rebuts the guidelines shall state the amount of support that would have been required under the guidelines, shall give a justification of why the order varies from the guidelines, and shall be determined by relevant evidence pertaining to the following factors affecting the obligation, the ability of each party to provide child support, and the best interests of the child:

1. Actual monetary support for other family members or former family members;

2. Arrangements regarding custody of the children, including the cost of visitation travel;

3. Imputed income to a party who is voluntarily unemployed or voluntarily underemployed, provided that (i) income may not be imputed to a custodial parent when a child is not in school, child care services are not available, and the cost of such child care services are not included in the computation; (ii) any consideration of imputed income based on a change in a party's employment shall be evaluated with consideration of the good faith and reasonableness of employment decisions made by the party, including to attend and complete an educational or vocational program likely to maintain or increase the party's earning potential; and (iii) a party's current incarceration, as defined in § 8.01-195.10, for 180 or more consecutive days shall not be deemed voluntary unemployment or voluntary underemployment. In addition, notwithstanding subsection F, a party's incarceration for 180 or more consecutive days shall be a material change in circumstances upon which a modification of child support may be based;

4. Any child care costs incurred on behalf of the child or children due to the attendance of a custodial parent in an educational or vocational program likely to maintain or increase the party's earning potential;

5. Debts of either party arising during the marriage for the benefit of the child;

6. Direct payments ordered by the court for maintaining life insurance coverage pursuant to subsection D, education expenses, or other court-ordered direct payments for the benefit of the child;

7. Extraordinary capital gains such as capital gains resulting from the sale of the marital abode;

8. Any special needs of a child resulting from any physical, emotional, or medical condition;

9. Independent financial resources of the child or children;

10. Standard of living for the child or children established during the marriage;

11. Earning capacity, obligations, financial resources, and special needs of each parent;

12. Provisions made with regard to the marital property under § 20-107.3, where said property earns income or has an income-earning potential;

13. Tax consequences to the parties including claims for exemptions, child tax credit, and child care credit for dependent children;

14. A written agreement, stipulation, consent order, or decree between the parties that includes the amount of child support; and

15. Such other factors as are necessary to consider the equities for the parents and children.

C. In any proceeding under this title, Title 16.1, or Title 63.2 on the issue of determining child support, the court shall have the authority to order either party or both parties to provide health care coverage or cash medical support, as defined in § 63.2-1900, or both, for dependent children if reasonable under all the circumstances and health care coverage for a spouse or former spouse.

D. In any proceeding under this title, Title 16.1, or Title 63.2 on the issue of determining child support, the court shall have the authority to order a party to (i) maintain any existing life insurance policy on the life of either party provided the party so ordered has the right to designate a beneficiary and (ii) designate a child or children of the parties as the beneficiary of all or a portion of such life insurance for so long as the party so ordered has a statutory obligation to pay child support for the child or children.

E. Except when the parties have otherwise agreed, in any proceeding under this title, Title 16.1, or Title 63.2 on the issue of determining child support, the court shall have the authority to and may, in its discretion, order one party to execute all appropriate tax forms or waivers to grant to the other party the right to take the income tax dependency exemption and any credits resulting from such exemption for any tax year or future years, for any child or children of the parties for federal and state income tax purposes.

F. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any amendments to this section shall not be retroactive to a date before the effective date of the amendment and shall not be the basis for a material change in circumstances upon which a modification of child support may be based.

G. Child support payments, whether current or arrears, received by a parent for the benefit of and owed to a child in the parent's custody, whether the payments were ordered under this title, Title 16.1, or Title 63.2, shall not be subject to garnishment. A depository wherein child support payments have been deposited on behalf of and traceable to an individual shall not be required to determine the portion of deposits that are subject to garnishment.

H. In any proceeding on the issue of determining child or spousal support or an action for separate maintenance under this title, Title 16.1, or Title 63.2, when the earning capacity, voluntary unemployment, or voluntary underemployment of a party is in controversy, the court in which the action is pending, upon the motion of any party and for good cause shown, may order a party to submit to a vocational evaluation by a vocational expert employed by the moving party, including, but not limited to, any interviews and testing as requested by the expert. The order may permit the attendance of the vocational expert at the deposition of the person to be evaluated. The order shall specify the name and address of the expert and the scope of the evaluation and shall fix the time for filing the report with the court and furnishing copies to the parties. The court may award costs or fees for the evaluation and the services of the expert at any time during the proceedings. The provisions of this section shall not preclude the applicability of any other rule or law.

1986, c. 461; 1988, c. 907; 1989, c. 599; 1990, c. 567; 1991, cc. 545, 588; 1992, cc. 543, 716, 860; 1993, cc. 520, 534; 1994, c. 764; 1995, c. 261; 1996, c. 491; 1998, cc. 592, 612; 2001, c. 809; 2004, cc. 204, 1008; 2006, cc. 785, 798; 2007, c. 872; 2009, c. 713; 2010, c. 176; 2013, cc. 276, 522; 2020, c. 192; 2022, c. 527.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 323 cases (25 in the last 5 years), 1989–2025 · leading case: Amanda Swanson Niblett v. Jason Daniel Niblett, 779 S.E.2d 839 (Va. Ct. App. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Amanda Swanson Niblett v. Jason Daniel Niblett, 779 S.E.2d 839 (Va. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 38× “See generally Code § 20-108.1. As a result, the court’s calculation of child support obligations is a combination of mandatory steps and broad discretion.”

Princiotto v. Gorrell, 590 S.E.2d 626 (Va. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 43× “However, there shall be a rebuttable presumption . . . that the amount of the award which would result from the application of the guidelines set out in § 20-108.”

Michael Hugh Palmer Murphy v. Corie Ann Murphy, 779 S.E.2d 236 (Va. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 36× “” Code § 20-108.1. In a modification proceeding, “[deviations from the presumptive support obligation [under Code § 20-108.”

Drew Tidwell v. Jennifer Late, 799 S.E.2d 696 (Va. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 14× “See generally Code § 20-108.1. As a result, the court’s calculation of child support obligations is a combination of mandatory steps and broad discretion.”

Cirrito v. Cirrito, 605 S.E.2d 268 (Va. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 10× “Code § 20-108.1 controls the award of child support payments.”

Farley v. Liskey, 401 S.E.2d 897 (Va. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 26× “This is an appeal from an order requiring a mother to pay child support to the children’s father in an amount determined under Code § 20-108.1. We hold that the trial court erred (1) by not determining the presumptive amount of child support under the guidelines found in Code §…”

Joynes v. Payne, 551 S.E.2d 10 (Va. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 8× “However, Code § 20-108.1(B) clearly states that the presumptive child support amount may be rebutted.”

Michael A. Oley v. Lisa S. Branch, 762 S.E.2d 790 (Va. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 16× “Only after determining the presumptive amount of support according to the schedule, may the circuit court adjust the support amount based on the factors found in Code § 20-108.1. Howe v. Howe, 30 Va.App.”

Shoup v. Shoup, 556 S.E.2d 783 (Va. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 12× “It follows that, where the court affirms, ratifies, approves and incorporates such an agreement into its divorce decree, in whole or in part, it has necessarily exercised the discretion granted to it under Code § 20-108.1 and determined that the agreement is consistent with the…”

L.C.S. v. S.a.s, 19 Va. App. 709 (Va. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 16× “These factors include (1) the “[ejarning capacity, obligations and needs, and financial resources of each parent,” Code § 20-108.1 (B)(l 1) (emphasis added), and (2) “[ijmputed income to a party who is voluntarily unemployed or under employed.”

Lcs v. Sas, 453 S.E.2d 580 (Va. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 16× “Even though the court determined that husband's assets had the potential to generate some income, as much as $15,000 per year, the court refused to deviate from the presumptive amount under Code § 20-108.1(B). However, as with spousal support, the court reserved wife's right to…”

Hiner v. Hadeed, 425 S.E.2d 811 (Va. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 12× “More specifically, the issue is when a trial judge has previously denied a request to modify a child support award that deviates significantly from the guidelines, without having made written findings why the guideline amount was unjust or inappropriate or what factors justified…”

Show all 323 citing cases →

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-108.1(0) — 1 case

Steven T. Russell v. Karen A. Russell, 759 S.E.2d 1 (Va. Ct. App. 2014).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-108.1(1) — 2 cases

In re Henderson, 29 Va. Cir. 164 (Charlottesville Cir. Ct. 1992).

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

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-108.1(10) — 1 case

Kirk T. Milam v. Shelia J. Milam (Va. Ct. App. 2013).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-108.1(11) — 1 case

In re Henderson, 29 Va. Cir. 164 (Charlottesville Cir. Ct. 1992).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-108.1(12) — 1 case

In re Henderson, 29 Va. Cir. 164 (Charlottesville Cir. Ct. 1992).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-108.1(14) — 1 case

David L Forrester v. Phyllis E Rienzo-Forrester (Va. Ct. App. 2002).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-108.1(2) — 2 cases

Vissicchio v. Vissicchio, 498 S.E.2d 425 (Va. Ct. App. 1998).

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

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-108.1(3) — 1 case

Courembis v. Courembis, 595 S.E.2d 505 (Va. Ct. App. 2004).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-108.1(8X1) — 1 case

Schafer v. Kibling, 43 Va. Cir. 614 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1996).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-108.1(A) — 4 cases

Clarence Williams, III v. Katryce Sykes-Williams (Va. Ct. App. 2022).

Karen Feldman v. Richard Feldman (Va. Ct. App. 2004).

Touchton v. Touchton, 27 Va. Cir. 130 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1992).

Eisenach v. Eisenach, 41 Va. Cir. 94 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1996).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-108.1(B) — 150 cases

Amanda Swanson Niblett v. Jason Daniel Niblett, 779 S.E.2d 839 (Va. Ct. App. 2015). “See generally Code § 20-108.1. As a result, the court’s calculation of child support obligations is a combination of mandatory steps and broad discretion.”

Princiotto v. Gorrell, 590 S.E.2d 626 (Va. Ct. App. 2004). “However, there shall be a rebuttable presumption . . . that the amount of the award which would result from the application of the guidelines set out in § 20-108.”

Prizzia v. Prizzia, 707 S.E.2d 461 (Va. Ct. App. 2011).

Cirrito v. Cirrito, 605 S.E.2d 268 (Va. Ct. App. 2004). “Code § 20-108.1 controls the award of child support payments.”

Herring v. Herring, 532 S.E.2d 923 (Va. Ct. App. 2000).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-108.1(B)(1) — 10 cases

Farley v. Liskey, 401 S.E.2d 897 (Va. Ct. App. 1991). “This is an appeal from an order requiring a mother to pay child support to the children’s father in an amount determined under Code § 20-108.1. We hold that the trial court erred (1) by not determining the presumptive amount of child support under the guidelines found in Code §…”

Richardson v. Richardson, 401 S.E.2d 894 (Va. Ct. App. 1991).

Zubricki v. Motter, 406 S.E.2d 672 (Va. Ct. App. 1991).

Robert William L. Hutchins v. Rosana L. Carrillo (Va. Ct. App. 1999).

Miller v. Miller, 72 Va. Cir. 274 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2006).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-108.1(B)(10) — 6 cases

Auman v. Auman, 464 S.E.2d 154 (Va. Ct. App. 1995).

Walter Edward Saxon, Jr. v. Angela LeSueur (Va. Ct. App. 2013).

Joseph Gary Bennett, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, Dep't of Soc. Servs., etc. (Va. Ct. App. 2010).

Kenneth R. Fox v. Wendy R. Fox (Va. Ct. App. 1998).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-108.1(B)(11) — 21 cases

Lcs v. Sas, 453 S.E.2d 580 (Va. Ct. App. 1995). “Even though the court determined that husband's assets had the potential to generate some income, as much as $15,000 per year, the court refused to deviate from the presumptive amount under Code § 20-108.1(B). However, as with spousal support, the court reserved wife's right to…”

Herring v. Herring, 532 S.E.2d 923 (Va. Ct. App. 2000).

Michael A. Oley v. Lisa S. Branch, 762 S.E.2d 790 (Va. Ct. App. 2014). “Only after determining the presumptive amount of support according to the schedule, may the circuit court adjust the support amount based on the factors found in Code § 20-108.1. Howe v. Howe, 30 Va.App.”

L.C.S. v. S.a.s, 19 Va. App. 709 (Va. Ct. App. 1995). “These factors include (1) the “[ejarning capacity, obligations and needs, and financial resources of each parent,” Code § 20-108.1 (B)(l 1) (emphasis added), and (2) “[ijmputed income to a party who is voluntarily unemployed or under employed.”

Howe v. Howe, 516 S.E.2d 240 (Va. Ct. App. 1999).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-108.1(B)(12) — 1 case

William Terrelle Henderson v. Brigitta Henderson (Va. Ct. App. 2018).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-108.1(B)(13) — 1 case

Timothy M. Barrett v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2020).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-108.1(B)(14) — 2 cases

Howe v. Howe, 516 S.E.2d 240 (Va. Ct. App. 1999).

Walter Edward Saxon, Jr. v. Angela LeSueur (Va. Ct. App. 2013).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-108.1(B)(15) — 8 cases

Dietz v. Dietz, 436 S.E.2d 463 (Va. Ct. App. 1993).

Floyd v. Floyd, 436 S.E.2d 457 (Va. Ct. App. 1993).

Pamela Kay Humphries v. Robert Brian Buchanan (Va. Ct. App. 2024).

Sufian Da'mes v. Gada Da'mes (Va. Ct. App. 2022).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-108.1(B)(16) — 9 cases

Zubair A. Saleem v. Afshan Ghias Saleem, a/k/a et a, 494 S.E.2d 883 (Va. Ct. App. 1998).

Afshan Ghias Saleem v. Zubair Ahmad Saleem (Va. Ct. App. 1998).

Buland v. Buland, 25 Va. Cir. 280 (Loudoun Cir. Ct. 1991).

Diane M. Davis v. John E. Davis (Va. Ct. App. 2004).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-108.1(B)(18) — 4 cases

Goldhamer v. Cohen, 525 S.E.2d 599 (Va. Ct. App. 2000).

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

Ikhamayyes Jariri v. Div. of Child Support Enf't, etc. (Va. Ct. App. 2004).

Jerry L. Gentry v. Faye J. Campbell (Va. Ct. App. 1998).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-108.1(B)(2) — 8 cases

Alexander v. Alexander, 406 S.E.2d 666 (Va. Ct. App. 1991).

Timothy M. Barrett v. Valerie Jill Rhudy Barrett (Va. Ct. App. 2011).

Donald Davis v. Lesa Robinson (Va. Ct. App. 2008).

J.r v. v. A.O.V. (Va. Ct. App. 2007).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-108.1(B)(3) — 92 cases

Michael Hugh Palmer Murphy v. Corie Ann Murphy, 779 S.E.2d 236 (Va. Ct. App. 2015). “” Code § 20-108.1. In a modification proceeding, “[deviations from the presumptive support obligation [under Code § 20-108.”

Brody v. Brody, 432 S.E.2d 20 (Va. Ct. App. 1993).

Bennett v. Com., Dept. of Soc. Servs., 472 S.E.2d 668 (Va. Ct. App. 1996).

Sargent v. Sargent, 460 S.E.2d 596 (Va. Ct. App. 1995).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-108.1(B)(4) — 1 case

Pamela Kay Humphries v. Robert Brian Buchanan (Va. Ct. App. 2024).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-108.1(B)(5) — 2 cases

Robert William L. Hutchins v. Rosana L. Carrillo (Va. Ct. App. 1999).

Jerry L. Gentry v. Faye J. Campbell (Va. Ct. App. 1998).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-108.1(B)(6) — 12 cases

Joynes v. Payne, 551 S.E.2d 10 (Va. Ct. App. 2001). “However, Code § 20-108.1(B) clearly states that the presumptive child support amount may be rebutted.”

Smith v. Smith, 444 S.E.2d 269 (Va. Ct. App. 1994).

Richardson v. Richardson, 401 S.E.2d 894 (Va. Ct. App. 1991).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-108.1(B)(7) — 2 cases

Smith v. Smith, 444 S.E.2d 269 (Va. Ct. App. 1994).

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

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-108.1(B)(8) — 6 cases

Shoup v. Shoup, 556 S.E.2d 783 (Va. Ct. App. 2001). “It follows that, where the court affirms, ratifies, approves and incorporates such an agreement into its divorce decree, in whole or in part, it has necessarily exercised the discretion granted to it under Code § 20-108.1 and determined that the agreement is consistent with the…”

Shoup v. Shoup, 542 S.E.2d 9 (Va. Ct. App. 2001).

Carter v. Thornhill, 453 S.E.2d 295 (Va. Ct. App. 1995).

Richard Sparks & Jean Bishop v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2019).

David L. Ridenour v. Laura M. Ridenour (Va. Ct. App. 2020).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-108.1(B)(9) — 5 cases

Rinaldi v. Dumsick, 528 S.E.2d 134 (Va. Ct. App. 2000).

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

Pamela Kay Humphries v. Robert Brian Buchanan (Va. Ct. App. 2024).

Touchton v. Touchton, 27 Va. Cir. 130 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1992).

Bennett v. Bennett, 34 Va. Cir. 324 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1994).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-108.1(B)(l) — 1 case

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

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-108.1(B)(ll) — 2 cases

Buland v. Buland, 25 Va. Cir. 280 (Loudoun Cir. Ct. 1991).

Zavaglia v. Zavaglia, 38 Va. Cir. 526 (Spotsylvania Cir. Ct. 1994).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-108.1(C) — 6 cases

Steven T. Russell v. Karen A. Russell, 759 S.E.2d 1 (Va. Ct. App. 2014).

Michael R. Pliuskaitis v. Teresa M. Pliuskaitis (Va. Ct. App. 2013).

Peter J. Eisert v. Dawn M. Eisert (Va. Ct. App. 2008).

Barbara Deanne Smith v. Eric Wendell Thompson (Va. Ct. App. 2015).

Roy D. Hare, Sr. v. Janice D. Hare (Va. Ct. App. 2000).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-108.1(D) — 9 cases

Charles A. Attiliis v. Patricia L. Attiliis (Va. Ct. App. 2009).

Adrienne Pederson v. Shawn D. Pederson (Va. Ct. App. 2016).

Arnulfo G. Garza v. Janet A. Garza (Va. Ct. App. 2018).

Ronnie Darin Watson v. Mironda Baker Watson (Va. Ct. App. 2009).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-108.1(D)(i) — 1 case

James Edward Germek v. Marsha K. Germek (Va. Ct. App. 1996).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-108.1(E) — 3 cases

Timothy M. Barrett v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2020).

Kulvinder Kaur v. Gurbrinder Singh Dhillon (Va. Ct. App. 2021).

David Lamberti Botos v. Kara Shannon Burchinal Botos (Va. Ct. App. 2022).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-108.1(G)(1) — 1 case

Buland v. Buland, 25 Va. Cir. 280 (Loudoun Cir. Ct. 1991).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-108.1(H) — 1 case

Jacqueline M. Nielsen v. Alan H. Nielsen (Va. Ct. App. 2021).

— Va. Code Ann. § 20-108.1(d) — 1 case

Ratcliffe v. Ratcliffe, 51 Va. Cir. 14 (Caroline Cir. Ct. 1999).

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.