APPEALS – PROCEDURE – WAIVER – LEE v. LEE RULE – “NECESSARY PARTIES” – CUSTODY APPEALS – CHILD SUPPORT – IMPUTED INCOME. Any lawyer who has any lingering doubt that, even after all the statutory vicissitudes, the rule of Lee v. Lee on waiver of appellate arguments still means everything it meant when it was first astoundingly articulated back in the 1990s, need have no more doubts, in view of an unpublished Court of Appeals opinion that will come as a surprise to some trial lawyers and a grim reminder to others. A mother who lost a custody case did not, it turns out, preserve her claim against the trial court’s having an in camera interview with a child without a court reporter present. No, she first noted her objection to this (on paper anyway), when filing her objections to the final decree. Rule 5A:18 again. The Court of Appeals did hold that there was nothing wrong with her failure to notify another losing party – an adult sibling – when she took her appeal. That was because the custody petition filed by that relative had already been dismissed. Finally, the appellate court holds that it was not error to impute minimum wage income for a 40-hour week to this mother, if there was sufficient evidentiary basis for the court’s finding that she was capable of working outside the home. Huston v. Huston, unpublished, 25 VLW 556 (10/19/10).