Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Social Services, etc. v. Elizabeth A. Quantrille

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judge Clements, Senior Judges Willis and Annunziata
Argued at Alexandria, Virginia
COMMONWEATLH OF VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
ex rel. DAVID A. POMEY
MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
v. Record No. 0072-05-4 JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR.
OCTOBER 4, 2005
ELIZABETH A. QUANTRILLE
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY
Lon E. Farris, Judge
Rebecca Copeland, Special Counsel, Division of Child Support
Enforcement (Judith Williams Jagdmann, Attorney General;
Craig M. Burshem, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Beth J.
Edwards, Regional Special Counsel; Hope F. Rosen, Special
Counsel, on briefs), for appellant.
(T. James Binder, on brief), for appellee. Appellee submitting on
brief.
On appeal from a reduction of Elizabeth Quantrille’s child support obligation, the Virginia
Department of Social Services (DSS) contends (1) that the trial court erred in placing upon it the
burden of proving that Ms. Quantrille’s change in circumstances was due to her voluntary act or
neglect, and (2) that the trial court erred by reducing Ms. Quantrille’s child support obligation based
on her testimony that she was wrongfully terminated from her employment. Because the trial court
improperly assigned the burden of proof, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for
further proceedings.
*
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
Background
On September 10, 2003, the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court of Prince
William County ordered Ms. Quantrille to pay $924 per month child support for her two daughters,
based on her income from employment by the United States Postal Service (Postal Service). In
March 2004, she moved the trial court to reduce this obligation because she was no longer
employed by the Postal Service.
Ms. Quantrille testified that her gross monthly income had decreased substantially because
the Postal Service had wrongfully terminated her employment. DSS presented a record of a Postal
Service arbitration decision finding that Ms. Quantrille’s dismissal was proper.
The trial court granted Ms. Quantrille’s motion, reducing her child support obligation to
$226 per month, effective March 23, 2004. The written statement of facts recites that the court
ruled that Ms. Quantrille had “met her burden to prove a material change in circumstances.” It
further recites, “The [c]ourt ruled that [DSS] failed to prove [Ms. Quantrille] lost her job due to her
own actions.” The trial court refused to impute income to Ms. Quantrille.
Analysis
“The court may . . . revise and alter . . . [a child support] decree . . . as the circumstances of
the parents and the benefit of the children may require.” Code § 20-108.
When invoking the divorce court’s continuing jurisdiction
under Code § 20-108, . . . 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. In discharging
this burden, a [parent] seeking a reduction in support payments
must . . . show his claimed lack of ability to pay is not due to his
own voluntary act or because of his neglect. In other words, the
[parent] must establish that he is not “voluntarily unemployed or
voluntarily under employed.”
Antonelli v. Antonelli, 242 Va. 152, 154, 409 S.E.2d 117, 118-19 (1991). See also Edwards v.
Lowry, 232 Va. 110, 112-13, 348 S.E.2d 259, 261 (1986) (party seeking reduction in child support
-2-
must show material change in circumstances justifying modification of decree, must make full and
clear disclosure regarding ability to pay, and must show lack of ability to pay is not due to own
voluntary act or neglect).
The trial court correctly placed on Ms. Quantrille the burden of proving a material change in
circumstances justifying modification of her support obligation. However, it erroneously placed
upon DSS the burden of proving that the change in circumstance was due to Ms. Quantrille’s
voluntary act or dereliction. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for
reconsideration under the correct standard of proof. We need not address DSS’s second issue.
Reversed and remanded.
-3-