Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The parties were divorced in 2012. The original order provided that, for tax exemption purposes, the father would claim Child B. and the mother would claim Child C. In 2014, mother sought modification of child support and medical support and requested an order providing that when one of the children reaches the age of majority, the remaining exemption should be rotated between the parents annually. Father requested the court to amend the order to include details of a joint parenting plan and to allocate the tax exemptions according to West Virginia Code 48-13-801.3, which requires that tax exemptions be proportioned between the parents according to income. After a remand from the circuit court, the family court clarified that the parties had agreed to “equal custodial allocation” and that the father had requested re-allocation of the tax exemptions only if no agreement was reached and observed: “It did not appear that the [mother’s] income and child support would be greater if the payor was awarded the exemption.” The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed, stating that the oral agreement regarding custodial allocation and other tangential issues did not eliminate the need to allocate the exemptions according to the statutory requirements, and remanded for financial analysis under the statute. View "Eric M. v. Laura M." on Justia Law

The West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) filed a petition alleging abuse and neglect against Father. After an adjudicatory hearing, the circuit court dismissed the abuse and neglect petition, concluding that DHHR failed to meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Father was abusive. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court’s dismissal of the abuse and neglect petition was clear error because the DHHR presented clear and convincing evidence that Father showed a sexually explicit video to two of his children and engaged in some sort of sexual conduct with one child. View "In re C.M." on Justia Law

In 2010, an abuse and neglect petition was filed alleging that Child’s mother (Mother) was under the influence of drugs while caring for Child. The Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) subsequently placed Child in the care of his paternal grandparents (Grandparents). In 2013, the circuit court held a permanency hearing and granted legal guardianship to Grandparents. Thereafter, Mother filed a petition to overturn legal guardianship, asserting that her recovery and continued sobriety constituted a material change in circumstances justifying a modification of the custody of Child. After a hearing held in 2015, the circuit court terminated Grandparents’ legal guardianship and ordered the transfer of Child to Mother. Grandparents appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that there was insufficient evidence in the record indicating that alteration of custody would serve Child’s best interests at this time. View "In re S.W." on Justia Law

The Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) filed an abuse and neglect petition against Parents. After an adjudicatory hearing on the DHHR’s petition, the circuit court granted the DHHR custody of Parents’ minor children, and the children were placed in foster care. Parents subsequently filed motions for improvement periods. After two evidentiary hearings, the circuit court entered a dispositional order denying Parents an improvement period and terminating Parents’ parental and custodial rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in denying Parents’ motions for improvement periods; and (2) did not err in terminating Parents’ parental and custodial rights. View "In re M.M." on Justia Law

Patricia Jones (Patricia) and Danny Akers (Danny) divorced. Thereafter, Judy Vannoy Akers (Judy) and Danny married. After Danny died, the West Virginia Public Employees Retirement Board (Board) awarded Judy disability retirements. Patricia argued that she was entitled to Danny’s West Virginia Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) retirement benefits based on the provision for those benefits in her divorce decree. The Board denied benefits on the grounds that there was not an enforceable qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) in effect at the time when the survivor benefits were issued to Judy. Both Patricia and Judy challenged the Board’s rulings. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the Board. The Supreme Court reversed after invoking its equitable powers to permit the posthumous entry of a QDRO that provided for distribution of Patricia’s equitable interest in the portion of Danny’s retirement assets recognized as marital property, holding (1) the Board erred in granting posthumous disability benefits to Judy rather than preretirement benefits; and (2) Patricia was entitled to seek Danny’s PERS benefits. View "Jones v. W. Va. Pub. Employees Ret. Sys." on Justia Law

Petitioners, the grandparents and temporary guardians of F.R., a three-year-old child, petitioned for guardianship of F.R. After an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court denied the petition for guardianship and ordered transfer of the custody of F.R. to Respondent, the child’s biological father, finding that Petitioners had failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that their appointment as guardians was in the child’s best interests. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, holding that the circuit court erred in failing to apply the standard enunciated by the Supreme Court in Overfield v. Collins and in ordering transfer of the custody of F.R. to Respondent without requiring clear and convincing evidence of Respondent’s fitness as a parent. Remanded. View "D.B. v. J.R." on Justia Law

The West Virginia Department of Health and Human Services (DHHR) filed a petition in the circuit court initiating the underlying abuse and neglect case. The petition alleged that Respondent Stepfather sexually abused K.P. and that Respondent Mother failed to protect K.P. from Stepfather and committed acts of emotional abuse against K.P. The DHHR removed all minor children from the home. After a multi-day adjudicatory hearing, the circuit court dismissed the abuse and neglect petition, concluding that DHHR had not met its burden of proving that K.P. was abused by either respondent and that Stepfather’s refusal to testify and rebut the abuse charges could not be used as evidence against him. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Respondents were abusing parents with regard to K.P., and therefore, the health and welfare of the other children in the home was also at risk; and (2) accordingly, the circuit court erred by refusing to adjudicate all the minor children as abused children. View "In re K.P." on Justia Law

This case involved the proper placement for two siblings, L.M., a three-year-old boy, and L.S., a two-year-old girl. The West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resrouces filed an abuse and neglect petition regarding the children and sought and received custody of the children. The children’s maternal Grandparents filed a motion to intervene and, further, moved for placement of the children in their home. The circuit court denied the Grandparents’ motion to intervene and for placement of the minor children. The Grandparents appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient was properly considered by the circuit court; and (2) the circuit court correctly applied the grandparent preference statute, W. Va. Code 49-3-1(a)(3), and did not err in determining that the Grandparents were not an appropriate adoptive placement for the minor children. View "In re L.M." on Justia Law

In 2013, the parties in this case were divorced pursuant to an agreed final order of divorce that included a mutual restraining order. The family court later found Respondent in contempt of court with regard to her attempts at contacting Petitioner. Respondent then filed a pro se petition for appeal challenging the contempt ruling and the inclusion of the mutual restraining order in the final order of divorce. The circuit court reversed the family court’s issuance of the mutual restraining order, concluding that the record was devoid of a proper evidentiary showing of abuse to support the issuance of the mutual restraining order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a court is prohibited from entering a mutual protective order unless each party has filed a petition asserting allegations of domestic violence against the order and established those allegations by a preponderance of the evidence. View "Riffle v. Riffle" on Justia Law

Husband, who was fifty-one years old, filed a petition for divorce after twenty-eight years of marriage to Wife, who was sixty-two years old. The family court entered an order awarding spousal support to Wife in the amount of $350 per month until Wife reached the age of sixty-five, at which time the spousal support should increase to $650 per month until Husband reached the age of sixty-seven. The circuit court reversed, concluding that the future increase in Wife’s spousal support award was impermissible and that the award should terminate in three years. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred by setting aside and vacating the spousal support award effective when Wife reached the age of sixty-five, as there was no basis for the circuit court to conclude that the family court’s decision with respect to the amount and duration of the spousal support award was arbitrary and capricious. Remanded. View "Warren v. Garland" on Justia Law