Dee Edward Newland, Jr. v. Georgeen M. Newland ( 2002 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Willis, Agee and Senior Judge Overton
Argued at Alexandria, Virginia
DEE EDWARD NEWLAND, JR.
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 0907-01-4 JUDGE G. STEVEN AGEE
MARCH 12, 2002
GEORGEEN M. NEWLAND
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA
Alfred D. Swersky, Judge
Mary M. Benzinger (Raymond B. Benzinger;
Benzinger & Benzinger, P.C., on briefs), for
appellant.
Yvonne DeBruyn Weight for appellee.
Dee Edward Newland, Jr., (father), appeals the March 7,
2001 decree of the Alexandria Circuit Court modifying his child
support obligation as requested by Georgeen M. Newland (mother).
He contends the circuit court erred in entering a modified order
increasing his child support obligation. For the following
reasons, we reverse the order and remand to the circuit court.
I. BACKGROUND
As the parties are fully conversant with the record in this
case and because this memorandum opinion carries no precedential
value, only those facts necessary to a disposition of this
appeal are recited.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
The parties were divorced in 1996, and a child support
order was then entered directing father to pay monthly child
support of $1,783. At that time, mother had sole custody of
their two minor children, with visitation to father. Prior to
separation, neither child attended a private school. Included
in the $1,783 monthly amount was $216 per month attributable to
the oldest child's attendance at St. Rita's, a parochial school.
The St. Rita's tuition was apparently not reflected as a child
care expense for guideline purposes as mother had specific child
care costs for the minor children. The circuit court
specifically ruled as follows regarding the $1,783 monthly
amount before entry of the 1996 decree:
[I]t is not the Court's intent that any
increase in tuition would cause any increase
in child support.
* * * * * * *
[H]e pays the amount, she elects to put them
in the school, she bears that burden.
* * * * * * *
I'm not requiring him to pay that tuition.
It's up to her to do whatever she is going
to do.
Father appealed the 1996 decree, including the support
amount to this Court, which affirmed the circuit court's award.
The issues of deviating from the child support guidelines by
including private school tuition as a guideline child care cost,
failing to calculate the presumptive guideline amount and
- 2 -
failing to make written findings to support the deviation from
the guidelines were not issues raised on that appeal.
After the 1996 decree, mother enrolled both children in
Bishop Ireton, a private, parochial high school without father's
consent. 1 Subsequently, while mother retained primary physical
custody, father was awarded 122.5 days of custodial time by a
November 10, 1999 order. In April, 2000, mother filed a
petition in the circuit court requesting the 1996 child support
order be modified to reflect, inter alia, (1) material changes
in the parties' incomes, (2) the elimination of child care
expenses, and (3) an increase in private school tuition as both
children were now attending Bishop Ireton. Father filed a cross
motion for a reduction in child support alleging a material
change in circumstances due to the parties' shared custody and
an increase in the parties' incomes.
Although child care costs for the children had ceased,
mother submitted into evidence a guidelines worksheet which
included $1,017 under the "work related child care costs of
Mother" section. This amount reflected the monthly tuition
payment for the two children to attend Bishop Ireton.
1
Attendance at Bishop Ireton by both children was the
educational choice made by mother pursuant to an earlier order
awarding all educational decisions to her.
- 3 -
After a hearing ore tenus, the circuit court accepted
mother's calculations and determined the earlier child support
award should be modified.
The Court is going to accept the shared
custody guideline worksheet of [mother].
I'm not dealing here with the issue, and it
has not been raised in the documents in the
proceedings, as to whether or not it's in
the best interest of these children that
they be in private school.
Therefore, I have to accept that the private
school and the tuition is an economic fact
of life. This is just an expense that these
parties have, and the question is how should
it then best be shared.
The cases that I've looked at all seem to
say the best way to do this is to add it
into the child support guidelines. And
. . . that's what I'm going to do.
On March 7, 2001, the circuit court issued its order to
this effect stating "the private school tuition should be
treated as an expense of the parties and included in the child
support calculation, and should be added to the child support
guidelines, notwithstanding that father has never consented to
the children attending private school." 2 This order resulted in
father's monthly child support obligation increasing from $1,783
to $2,105.
2
The circuit court attached to its decree mother's child
support guidelines worksheet.
- 4 -
II. ANALYSIS
On appeal, father contends the circuit court erred in
applying the statutory provisions of Code § 20-108.1. Upon
review, we find the procedure of the circuit court to calculate
child support was erroneous and, therefore, the decree as to
child support should be reversed.
Pursuant to Code § 20-108, a circuit court retains
"continuing jurisdiction after a final decree of divorce has
been entered, to modify its decree with respect to the . . .
maintenance of minor children." Edwards v. Lowry, 232 Va. 110,
112, 348 S.E.2d 259, 261 (1986). In a hearing on a petition for
modification of child support, the burden is on the moving party
to prove a material change in circumstances that warrants a
modification of support. See, e.g., Yohay v. Ryan, 4 Va. App.
559, 566, 359 S.E.2d 320, 324 (1987). "The [circuit] court's
decision, when based upon credibility determinations made during
an ore tenus hearing, is owed great weight and will not be
disturbed unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support
it." Douglas v. Hammett, 28 Va. App. 517, 525, 507 S.E.2d 98,
102 (1998).
After finding a change in material circumstances, the
starting point for determining the child support obligation of a
party at a modification hearing is to compute the presumptive
amount using the guidelines and schedule found in the Code. See
Watkinson v. Henley, 13 Va. App. 151, 158, 409 S.E.2d 470, 473
- 5 -
(1991). Here, the circuit court failed to properly apply the
statutory provisions.
The circuit court calculated the child support amount,
under the guise of using the guidelines, by including the
children's private, parochial school tuition as a child care
expense. This was error because private school tuition is not a
child care expense under Code § 20-108.2(F) or Code
§ 20-108.1(B)(6). "Implicit in the statutory scheme is that
educational expenses are included in the presumptive amount of
child support as calculated under the Code." Smith v. Smith, 18
Va. App. 427, 435, 444 S.E.2d 269, 275 (1994). As mother
admitted she was "no longer incurring day care costs," the
circuit court should have calculated the presumptive child
support amount under the statutory guidelines excluding any
amount under "work related child care costs of Mother" as no
evidence appears in the record of any such expenses. The clear
and unequivocal statutory mandate of Code § 20-108.1(B) requires
this presumptive "amount of support that would have been
required under the guidelines" be stated in writing by the
circuit court, which it failed to do.
If upon the evidence, the circuit court determines that the
presumptive amount is unjust or inappropriate, the statute
plainly requires written findings by the circuit court in its
- 6 -
decree delineating why that is so. 3 Only after such a written
finding is made can the presumptive guideline amount be altered
to include other amounts such as private school educational
expenses. The circuit court failed to make the statutorily
required finding as to why the presumptive guidelines amount
would be unjust or inappropriate.
[A]fter determining the presumptive
amount of support according to the schedule,
the [circuit] court may adjust the amount
based on the factors found in Code
§§ 20-107.2 and 20-108.1. Deviations from
the presumptive amount must be supported by
written findings which state why the
application of the guidelines in that
particular case would be unjust or
inappropriate.
Richardson v. Richardson, 12 Va. App. 18, 21, 401 S.E.2d 894,
896 (1991). Furthermore, "a conclusory written statement of
[the circuit court's] findings" is not sufficient to justify
deviating from the presumptive guideline amount. Id. If the
circuit court fails to provide sufficient explanation for any
deviation it decides to make, its actions will be deemed error.
See Pharo v. Pharo, 19 Va. App. 236, 450 S.E.2d 183 (1994).
Only if [circuit courts] follow the
statutory requirements will Virginia child
support awards conform to the federal and
state legislative mandates designed to
create uniformity in support awards between
3
Code § 20-108.1(B) ("[i]n order to rebut the presumption,
the [circuit 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").
- 7 -
parents and children similarly situated.
[Circuit courts] must make the requisite
specific written findings, not solely for
the purposes of appellate review, but, more
important, to enable . . . judges in future
hearings to decide whether and how to
increase, decrease, or terminate support.
Only by having specific written findings
will . . . judges in subsequent proceedings
be able to make informed decisions on how a
change in circumstances may justify
modification or may justify continued
deviation from the guidelines.
Hiner v. Hadeed, 15 Va. App. 575, 581-82, 425 S.E.2d 811, 815
(1993) (internal citations omitted).
Accordingly, we reverse the decree of March 7, 2001, and
remand this case to the circuit court for the proper calculation
of child support in accord with the principles expressed in this
opinion. 4
Reversed and remanded.
4
In the absence of the findings required by Code
§ 20-108.1(B) as to the presumptive child support amount, or the
justification (if any) for any deviation from that amount, we do
not address any issues raised by the parties as to the factors
enunciated in Solomond v. Ball, 22 Va. App. 385, 470 S.E.2d 157(1996), as it does not appear those issues have been addressed
in or by the circuit court.
- 8 -