Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

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

Husband and Wife were married and had a child together. The family court later entered an order granting the parties a divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. Wife was designated the custodian of the parties' child and Husband was granted parenting time with certain limitations due to Husband's propensity to initiate conflict with other person. The circuit court affirmed most of the family court's rulings, with the exception of the limitations on Husband's visitation with the child, concluding that the family court abused its discretion when it limited Husband's visitation because of potential conflicts with other persons. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's order insofar as it expanded Husband's parenting time with the child and remanded with directions to reinstate the family court's order, holding that the family court's limitation of Husband's contact with the child was amply supported by the evidence, and it was an abuse of the circuit court's discretion to overrule the family court's order in this regard.View "Mark V.H. v. Dolores J.M." on Justia Law

The Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) filed a petition to institute abuse and neglect proceedings against Mother regarding her child K.L. The DHHR’s petition against Mother was based solely on the prior involuntary termination as to another child C.W. The circuit court terminated Mother’s parental rights after finding that Mother failed to meet her burden of showing a change in her circumstances since the termination of her parental rights to C.W. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court committed reversible error in shifting the burden to Mother in this abuse and neglect case. Remanded. View "In re K.L." on Justia Law

Four days before their wedding, Husband and Wife executed a prenuptial agreement. Wife later filed for divorce, and Husband requested enforcement of the prenuptial agreement. The family court invalidated the prenuptial agreement on the grounds that Wife did not enter into the agreement with full knowledge of the contents of the agreement and its legal effect. The family court ultimately divided the parties’ marital estate equally. The circuit court largely affirmed. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the portion of the circuit court’s order that ruled that the prenuptial agreement was unenforceable; but (2) reversed the portion of the circuit court’s order related to the equitable distribution of the parties’ marital estate. Remanded. View "Owen v. Owen" on Justia Law

Wife conveyed real estate to her five adult children without providing notice to Husband during the pendency of the parties’ divorce. The family court ruled that Wife’s conveyance of the subject property without notice to Husband violated W. Va. Code 43-1-2(b) and ordered that the value of the property be included in the calculation of the marital property. The circuit court reversed. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s order and reinstated the order of the family court, holding (1) Husband was entitled to statutory notice of the real estate conveyance under the plain language of section 43-1-2(b); and (2) the family court applied the proper remedy for a violation of this notice provision. View "Stanley v. Stanley" on Justia Law

The Department of Health and Human Resources filed a petition for abuse and neglect, alleging that Father had repeatedly sexually abused and assaulted F.S., his daughter. The circuit court dismissed the petition for abuse and neglect, concluding that the facts did not constitute clear and convincing evidence of abuse by Father due to inconsistencies in F.S.’s allegations and in Mother’s statements regarding the sexual abuse. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, based upon all the evidence presented, the circuit court erred in dismissing the petition and finding lack of clear and convincing evidence that Father abused F.S. Remanded for entry of an order adjudicating F.S. and her brother Z.S. as abused children based upon the sexual abuse perpetrated upon F.S. by Father. View "In re F.S." on Justia Law

Mother and Father were married when C.R. was born in 2001. Mother and Father later divorced. In 2004, Father was convicted of first degree sexual abuse and, at the time of this opinion, was serving probation. Mother and C.R. had been living continuously with Stepfather since 2006. Mother and Stepfather married in 2010 and subsequently filed a petition for adoption to permit Stepfather to adopt C.R. Father refused to consent to the adoption. The circuit court denied the adoption on the grounds that “the biological father has not abandoned the minor child.” The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because the elements of the statutory presumption of abandonment set forth in W. Va. Code 48-22-306 were satisfied in this case, neither Father’s consent to the requested adoption nor his relinquishment of his parental rights was required. Remanded. View "In re Adoption of C.R." on Justia Law

Following allegations of sexual abuse and failure to protect, the Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) brought a child abuse and neglect proceeding against Father and Mother (Petitioners). After an adjudicatory hearing, the circuit court found that the children were abused and neglected, and, after a dispositional hearing, terminated the parental rights of Petitioners. Petitioners appealed, arguing that their procedural due process rights were violated when the out-of-court statements of two children were admitted to prove allegations of sexual abuse when Petitioners were not given an opportunity to confront and cross-examine the children. The Supreme Court affirmed the termination of Petitioners’ parental rights, holding (1) in a child abuse and neglect civil proceeding held pursuant to W. Va. Code 29-6-2, a party does not have a procedural due process right to confront and cross-examine a child, and the circuit court shall exclude this testimony if it finds the potential psychological harm to the child outweighs the necessity of the child’s testimony; and (2) the circuit court adequately safeguarded Petitioners’ procedural due process rights in this case. View "In re J.S." on Justia Law