Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

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

After K.H.’s mother died, the family court appointed the material grandmother (Grandmother) as guardian of the child. Father did not object to Grandmother’s appointment. The court subsequently granted primary custody to Grandmother with parenting time to Father. Father later field a petition to terminate Grandmother’s guardianship of the child. Grandmother responded by filing a motion seeking to be designated as K.H.’s “psychological parent.” After a series of hearings, the family court terminated Grandmother’s guardianship and denied her motion to be considered a psychological parent. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding (1) the family court did not abuse its discretion in terminating Grandmother’s guardianship of K.H.; but (2) Grandmother was the psychological parent to K.H., and as such, Grandmother and K.H. were entitled to continued association with one another. View "In re K.H." on Justia Law

An abuse and neglect petition was filed against Mother regarding her two children. Mother stipulated to allegations of abuse and neglect. The circuit court subsequently granted a post-adjudicatory improvement period for Mother. The circuit court later terminated Mother’s parental rights to her children. Mother appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in finding that she left an addiction recovery center early, had not made sufficient progress toward reunification with her children, and had not substantially complied with the family case plan. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that termination of Mother’s parental rights was not warranted in this case, as the circuit court’s findings supporting termination were clearly erroneous. View "In re C.M." on Justia Law

Carol Kinsinger and Todd Pethel were divorced by a final order entered in 2006. The final order incorporated by reference a settlement agreement stating that Kinsinger was entitled to fifty percent of the martial portion of Pethel’s thrift savings plan (TSP). In 2012, Kinsinger prepared and filed a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), and the family court ordered the Kinsinger be paid one-half of the marital portion of the TSP that was contributed while the parties were married and living together. However, in 2009, Pethel had withdrawn all funds from the TSP. Petitioner filed a petition for contempt of the retirement benefits order. The family court declined to find Pethel in contempt, concluding that Kinsinger failed to timely file her QDRO and therefore forfeited her share of the TSP. The circuit court affirmed, interpreting the family court ruling as an application of the doctrine of laches. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the circuit court’s finding that Pethel was not in contempt of the QDRO; but (2) reversed the circuit court’s finding that Kinsinger forfeited her share of the TSP under the doctrine of laches. Remanded for entry of a judgment order awarding Kinsinger the amount to which she was entitled. View "Kinsinger v. Pethel" on Justia Law

Father filed a motion to modify and amend a parenting plan, after which Mother filed her own motion for modification and amendment. The family court entered an order making changes to the parenting plan. The circuit court made additional changes to the parenting plan. Thereafter, on reconsideration, the circuit court overturned the final decision of the family court as it pertained to the time allotted Mother and Father for the parenting of the couple’s child. Mother appealed and Father cross-appealed. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the circuit court’s order disturbing the family court’s allocation of parenting time; and (2) affirmed the circuit court’s order insofar as it left undisturbed the family court’s determination that changed circumstances justified modification of the child’s parenting plan and insofar as it ratified the family court’s decision to permit Mother to continue as the sole decisionmaker pertaining to the child’s extracurricular activities. View "In re Child of Stephen H. & Tamara P." on Justia Law

Mother and Father, who were not married, had a child. The child was given Father’s surname at birth. After the parents ended their relationship, the circuit court granted Mother’s request to change the child’s surname to a hyphenated name using both parents’ last names. The Supreme Court reversed but did not remand the case to the circuit court for further proceedings. Nevertheless, the circuit court sua sponte noticed the case for a hearing, after which the circuit court purported to grant Mother’s petition and again changed the child’s surname to the hyphenated name. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court had no authority to hold the evidentiary hearing or to enter the order changing the child’s name for a second time. View "In re Name Change of Jenna A.J." on Justia Law

This case originated as a divorce action in the family court. During the pendency of child support enforcement proceedings initiated by the Bureau for Child Support Enforcement (BCSE), the underlying abuse and neglect case was filed in the circuit court. In the abuse and neglect case, the circuit court terminated Father’s parental rights to the parties’ child and modified his support obligation. The circuit court subsequently held Father to be in contempt for nonpayment of child support and remanded the case to the family court for enforcement of the circuit court’s modified child support order. The BCSE appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court improperly remanded the case to the family court for enforcement of the child support order entered by the circuit court. View "In re Interest of J.L." on Justia Law