Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

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 However, in 2009, Pethel had withdrawn all funds from the TSP.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

Approximately one month after I.T. was born, Mother and I.T. moved into Grandmother’s residence. Mother moved out of Grandmother’s residence five months later, leaving I.T. in Grandmother’s care. Grandmother subsequently filed a petition requesting that she be appointed guardian of I.T. The circuit court denied the guardianship petition, finding (1) Grandmother failed to present evidence that Mother was an unfit mother; and (2) there was no finding of abuse or neglect by Mother upon I.T. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err by (1) issuing its ruling prior to receiving the report of I.T.’s guardian ad litem or the results of a paternity test; and (2) denying Grandmother’s guardianship petition.View "In re I.T." on Justia Law

Mother filed two domestic violence petitions on behalf of B.C., her minor child. Mother’s second petition was granted, and an emergency protective order was entered in favor of B.C. and against Father. Mother subsequently filed an amended abuse and neglect petition asking the circuit court to terminate Father’s parental rights based upon his alleged abuse and neglect of B.C. The allegations were essentially the same allegations made in the domestic violence petition. The circuit court dismissed the petition, concluding that it was barred by the doctrine of res judicata and collateral estoppel. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that even if a civil domestic violence proceeding and a civil abuse and neglect proceeding involve the same underlying facts, the separate proceedings do not implicate the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel.View "In re B.C." on Justia Law

In this divorce case, Husband appealed and Wife cross-appealed from the final order entered by the circuit court. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded in part and affirmed in part the decision of the circuit court, holding that the circuit court (1) erred in its valuation of Husband’s marital interest in Advantage Timberland, Inc. (“Advantage”) and erred in its calculation of child support; and (2) did not err in (i) reversing the decision of the family court regarding rehabilitative spousal support; (ii) attributing one-third of the value of Advantage to Husband’s personal good will; and (iii) not awarding attorney’s fees and costs to Wife.View "Ward v. Ward" on Justia Law

Mother and Father’s first child, L.W., died due to abusive head trauma in 2009. Father confessed to causing L.W.’s death and pleaded guilty to felony manslaughter. Father subsequently denied that any abuse or neglect of L.W. occurred. In 2012, Mother and Father’s second child, S.W., was born. The Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) filed an abuse and neglect petition against Mother and Father, alleging that Father was subject to an aggravated circumstances filing based upon his conviction of manslaughter. The circuit court granted emergency custody of S.W. to the DHHR. After a disposition hearing, the circuit court directed the DHHR to develop a plan for reunification between S.W. and Father. DHHR appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in ordering reunification because Father’s failure to acknowledge responsibility for the death of L.W. rendered the conditions and circumstances in the home untreatable. Remanded for entry of an order terminating the parental rights of Father to S.W. View " In re S.W." on Justia Law