Diane Marie Dreyer Ribble v Stephen Dexter Ribble

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judges Willis, Fitzpatrick and Overton
Argued at Salem, Virginia
DIANE MARIE DREYER RIBBLE
v. 	Record No. 0899-95-3 	MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR.
STEPHEN DEXTER RIBBLE 	APRIL 23, 1996
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY
Ray W. Grubbs, Judge
Edwin C. Stone (Stone, Harrison, Turk &
Showalter, P.C., on brief), for appellant.
Stephen D. Ribble, pro se.
Diane Marie Dreyer Ribble contends that the trial court
erred in denying her petition for modification of child support.
We find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The parties were granted a final decree of divorce on
November 18, 1992. 	Ms. Ribble was awarded custody of the
parties' two minor children. 	The divorce decree required Mr.
Ribble to pay $560 per month child support and $180 per month
employment-related child care expenses through the 1992-93 school
year.
During the 1993-94 school year, Ms. Ribble sought
contribution from Mr. Ribble for her current monthly child care
charges. 	He made no payment against those expenses. 	In October,
1993, Ms. Ribble served a notice on Mr. Ribble advising him that
*Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.

- 2 -
she would petition the court to order him to help pay child care
expenses. 	No hearing was held on that petition. 	On January 18,
1994, Ms. Ribble filed a petition seeking an increase in child
support to cover work-related child care expenses and medical
expenses. 	A hearing was held on May 16, 1994. 	The evidence
showed that no day care expenses beyond the 1992-93 school year
were included in the divorce decree, that Ms. Ribble incurred
$4,063 in work-related day care expenses for the 1993-94 school
year, and that Mr. Ribble had not paid any of those expenses.
The trial court refused to require Mr. Ribble to pay any
part of the work-related day care expenses for the 1993-94 school
year because that obligation was not provided in the final decree
and the petition requesting reimbursement was never acted upon.
However, the trial court ordered Mr. Ribble to pay one-half of
future work-related day care expenses, not to exceed $175 per
month, arising after May 16, 1994. 	We find no error in the trial
court's judgment.
"When invoking the divorce court's continuing jurisdiction
under Code § 20-108, following entry of a final decree of
divorce, a party seeking a change in court-ordered child support
has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence a
material change in circumstances justifying modification of the
support requirement." 	Antonelli v. Antonelli, 242 Va. 152, 154,
409 S.E.2d 117, 118-19 (1991) (citation omitted). 	Ms. Ribble
alleged no material change in circumstances justifying a change

- 3 -
in court-ordered child support. 	She alleged only that Mr. Ribble
owed her money for work-related child care expenses incurred
after the court-ordered support for child care had expired.
Because the final divorce decree made no provision for child care
expenses after the 1992-93 school year, Mr. Ribble was under no
obligation to pay those expenses until ordered.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.