Home / Opinion Digests / Family Law / Deployed Dad Not Liable for Private Schools

Deployed Dad Not Liable for Private Schools

The Court of Appeals summarily affirms a child support order requiring father to pay monthly support of $725.85 with no additional amount for private schools and dividing equally responsibility for unreimbursed medical and dental expenses exceeding $250 annually.

The parties were married six years and had two children. Their 2002 separation agreement called for father to pay monthly support of $1,000 with an agreement the children would attend a specific private school; the agreement misnamed the school by adding one of the children’s names to its title. This agreement was modified through mediation in 2004 to increase father’s monthly obligation to $1,530. In 2008 both parties moved the juvenile and domestic relations district (JDR) court for modifications which had to be continued several times for father’s Navy deployment. The JDR court reduced father’s monthly obligation to $806.18. On mother’s appeal, the circuit after a hearing further reduced father’s obligation to $725.85, denied her request for private school tuition and ordered equal sharing of the unreimbursed medical and dental expenses exceeding $250 annually.

On appeal, mother advances 14 issues; four are not addressed in her brief as required by Rule 5A:20 (e) and will not be considered. We also will not consider arguments mother did not make to the trial court regarding prior orders increasing support, father’s alleged failure to give notice of his change of address, §20-108.2 (f) requiring inclusion of daycare expenses, §20-108.2(D) requiring a material change of circumstances, and correcting the name of school in the Agreement. Mother has not shown a miscarriage of justice warranting application of the ends of justice exception of Rule 5A:18. The trial court did not err in denying mother’s request that father pay tuition for two private schools not named in the parties’ separation agreement. The record is insufficient to review mother’s claim that the best interests of the younger child required continuing in the private school. A written statement of facts of a hearing is insufficient; without a transcript we can only consider a written statement of facts signed by the trial judge. There was no change in custody or visitation to review.

Judgment affirmed.

Lewis v. Bailey (Per Curiam) No. 2596-10-1, Aug. 2, 2011, Va. Beach Cir. Ct. (West) Andrew R. Sebok for appellant; Darrell M. Harding for appellee. VLW 011-7-260(UP), 10 pp.

VLW 011-7-260

Fulltext Opinions

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


Scroll To Top