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.