COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Frank 

RICHARD B. SCHOONOVER 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* 

v. Record No. 0554-99-3 PER CURIAM 

 SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 

PETULA LEE GREEN SCHOONOVER 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FLOYD COUNTY 

Ray W. Grubbs, Judge 

 (Harry F. Bosen, Jr.; Harry F. Bosen, Jr., 

P.C., on brief), for appellant. 

 (John S. Huntington, on brief), for appellee. 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code 

§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.

 Richard B. Schoonover (father) appeals from the February 17, 

1999 order of the circuit court changing custody of the parties' 

two sons to Petula Lee Green Schoonover (mother). On appeal, 

father contends that the trial court erred by finding (1) that 

mother proved that there had been a material change in 

circumstances since the last custody decision; and (2) that the 

transfer of custody was in the children's best interests. Upon 

reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that 

this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm 

the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27. 

 As the party seeking to modify custody, mother bore the 

burden to prove "(1) whether there has been a change of 
circumstances since the most recent custody award; and (2) whether 

such a change would be in the best interests of the child." 

Hughes v. Gentry, 18 Va. App. 318, 321, 443 S.E.2d 448, 450-51 

(1994) (citing Keel v. Keel, 225 Va. 606, 611, 303 S.E.2d 917, 921 

(1983)). See Code § 20-108. The decision to modify a child 

custody order is committed to the sound discretion of the trial 

court. See Wilson v. Wilson, 18 Va. App. 193, 195, 442 S.E.2d 

694, 695-96 (1994). "'The court, in the exercise of its sound 

discretion, may alter or change custody or the terms of visitation 

when subsequent events render such action appropriate for the 

child's welfare.'" Id. (quoting Eichelberger v. Eichelberger, 2 

Va. App. 409, 412, 345 S.E.2d 10, 11 (1986)). The trial court's 

determination of whether a change of circumstances exists and its 

evaluation of the best interests of the child will not be 

disturbed on appeal if the court's findings are supported by 

credible evidence. See Walker v. Fagg, 11 Va. App. 581, 586, 400 

S.E.2d 208, 211 (1991). 

Material Change in Circumstances

 Father contends that the trial court entered its most 

recent custody order on September 24, 1998, and, therefore, 

mother was obligated to prove that there had been a material 

change in circumstances during the period between the September 

and December hearings. We disagree. It is apparent from the 

record that the trial court made no final custody determination 

in its order of September 24, 1998. The trial court did not 

- 2 -
deny mother's motion to change custody. In the September order, 

the trial court found that it would be in the children's best 

interests to have father retain custody and to increase mother's 

visitation. However, the trial court ordered father to arrange 

for the educational testing and counseling of the children as 

recommended by the licensed clinical psychologist. Significantly, 

the trial court also scheduled an additional hearing in December 

"regarding the children's education and counseling." The trial 

court opened the December hearing by noting that "we're here for 

review of the custody and visitation arrangement." During that 

hearing, the court noted that it was being held 

for the Court to review whether or not a 

correct decision was made last time and to 

see the interaction of the parents with the 

children and how their progress was being 

noted within the classroom and outside the 

classroom. . . . I wanted the opportunity to 

review the matter to answer some questions 

that the Court had. That was the purpose, 

really, of this proceeding. 

 Thus, the December hearing was an additional evidentiary 

hearing on mother's pending motion. Mother was required to 

present evidence that there had been a material change in 

circumstances since the 1993 order under which father received 

physical custody. 

 "Whether a change of circumstances exists is a factual 

finding that will not be disturbed on appeal if the finding is 

supported by credible evidence." Visikides v. Derr, 3 Va. App. 

69, 70, 348 S.E.2d 40, 41 (1986). At the time mother filed her 

- 3 -
motion, the boys were five years older than they were when the 

trial court entered the original custody order. In 1993, only 

the older boy had begun elementary school. In 1998, both 

children were experiencing difficulties in school. Therefore, 

credible evidence supports the finding of the trial court that 

there had been a material change in circumstances since the 

previous custody order. 

Best Interests of the Children

 "In matters of a child's welfare, trial courts are vested 

with broad discretion in making the decisions necessary to guard 

and to foster a child's best interests." Farley v. Farley, 9 

Va. App. 326, 327-28, 387 S.E.2d 794, 795 (1990). We find no 

abuse of discretion in the trial court's finding that it was in 

the best interests of the children to change custody. 

 At the December 1998 hearing, the parties presented evidence 

concerning the children's progress in school. The evidence 

demonstrated that father did not respond when teachers sent home 

notes indicating that the older son was not turning in his 

homework. Father did not respond to teachers' requests for 

conferences. Despite the fact that the older boy received only Ds 

and Cs on his first two report cards for fifth grade, father 

waited until two weeks prior to the hearing to meet with the 

teachers to discuss the boy's schoolwork. The trial court found 

that father had "done nothing to support your son in the needs 

- 4 -
that have been expressed here insofar as his learning 

advancement is concerned." 

 Mother presented evidence that she remained involved in the 

boys' education despite the fact she did not have custody. She 

met with the teachers and came to the school to have lunch with 

the boys. 

 In addition, despite the trial court's expressed concerns 

about the parents' refusal to cooperate with each other, father 

refused to enroll in the Children of Divorce seminar when so 

directed by the court. Mother completed the class. 

 Therefore, credible evidence supports the finding of the 

trial court that it was in the best interests of the children to 

change custody. Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is 

summarily affirmed. 

 Affirmed. 

- 5 -