Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

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

The circuit court adjudicated Mother’s two children abused and neglected and awarded Mother a six-month post-adjudicatory improvement period. After the conclusion of Mother’s improvement period, the circuit court granted primary custodial responsibility to the children’s father (Father) and granted Mother unsupervised visitation with the children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err by granting Father primary custody of the children where (1) Mother had substantially complied with the terms and conditions of her improvement period because, in making the final disposition in a child abuse and neglect proceeding, the level of a parent’s compliance with the terms and conditions of an improvement period is just one factor to be considered; and (2) any delay in awarding unsupervised visitation to permit Mother to demonstrate what she had learned from her improvement period was due to Mother’s own actions, which caused continuing concern for the children’s safety.View "In re B.H." on Justia Law

Upon Mother’s divorce from Father, Mother was designated primary custodian of their daughter. When the daughter was seven years old, Mother was arrested upon a charge of child neglect. Mother pleaded guilty to contributing to the neglect of a minor. The family court designated Father as the daughter’s custodian and established a temporary visitation schedule between Mother and the child. The circuit court subsequently (1) sentenced Mother to thirty days in jail and two years of probation, (2) directed Mother to register with the state police pursuant to the West Virginia Child Abuse and Neglect Registration Act (the Act), and (3) reduced Mother’s temporary visitation schedule with the daughter. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not abuse its discretion in requiring Mother to register under the Act; and (2) did not commit reversible error in modifying the temporary visitation schedule established by the family court.View "State v. Kimberly S." on Justia Law

Mother and Father were married and had three minor children. After Mother and Father divorced, the family court ordered that Father’s parents should have visitation with the children every other Saturday. Mother appealed, asserting that the family court erred in granting grandparent visitation. The circuit court refused Mother’s petition for appeal. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the family court exceeded its authority under the West Virginia Grandparent Visitation Act when it awarded visitation with the children to the grandparents; and (2) the circuit court continued the legal error in refusing Mother’s petition for appeal. Remanded for entry of an order denying grandparent visitation rights to the grandparents. View "Alyssha R. v. Nicholas H." on Justia Law