would not adversely affect the children). Further, the well-established principle of law that requires court approval of any modification of support remains intact under Aeree and is not eroded by extending the Aeree exception to cases in which the change in custody results in a shared rather than a sole custodial arrangement. The Aeree holding implicitly acknowledges the principle that parties who enter into agreements for support and implement them without seeking and obtaining court approval, do so at their peril and will be held accountable for non-conforming payments when measured against the Aeree factors and the court’s ultimate determination of appropriate support levels during the relevant periods. See Watkinson v. Henley, 13 Va.App. 151, 158-59, 409 S.E.2d 470, 474 (1991) (<HOLDING>); Alexander v. Alexander, 12 Va.App. 691, 695,
holding that after determining presumptive amount under guidelines court must determine whether parties agreement would better serve childs interest holding that trial court must determine presumptive amount under guidelines before considering other factors holding that new york common law must be applied to determine whether the parties formed an oral settlement agreement and state statutory law must be applied to determine whether the agreement if any is enforceable holding that the court must determine whether the employees consent to the settlement agreement was knowing and voluntary holding that courts must look to state law to determine childs legal status for inheritance before evaluating the childs renewal rights under the copyright act