Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

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

Lisa Martin filed a domestic violence petition against Chubby Hoston, who was incarcerated. Attorney Colin Cline was appointed to act as Hoston's guardian ad litem. Based on a statement made by Hoston that Cline delivered at the family court hearing, Hoston was charged with intimidation of and retaliation against a witness. The prosecuting attorney in the criminal matter, Scott Ash, issued a subpoena to Cline seeking his testimony on the statement Hoston directed him to deliver at the family court hearing. The circuit court granted Hoston's motion to prohibit the testimony of Cline in the criminal proceeding, concluding that the communication between Hoston and his guardian was protected by the attorney-client privilege. Ash filed a writ of prohibition to prohibit the circuit court from suppressing the testimony of Cline. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding (1) an attorney-client relationship is formed when a lawyer acts as an incarcerated person's guardian ad litem in a family court proceeding; but (2) when an incarcerated person directs his guardian ad litem to convey a statement to a third party, that statement is not protected by the attorney-client privilege. View "State ex rel. Ash v. Circuit Court" on Justia Law

After Mother and Father separated, the family court filed an order granting Mother permission to change her residence to the state of Georgia and to have primary physical custody of the parties' child. Two years later, Father filed a motion for modification of the parenting plan. After a hearing, the family court ordered a change in the primary residential physical custody of the child, awarding such custody to Father. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the family court did not abuse its discretion in awarding primary residential custody to Father in this case. View "Amanda A. v. Kevin T." on Justia Law

The circuit court adjudicated Mother as an abusive and neglectful parent with regard to her child, J.C., on the basis of Mother's drug use, the termination of Mother's parental rights to three other children, the history of domestic violence in Mother's home. After a disposition hearing, the circuit court terminated the parental rights of Mother, concluding that there was no likelihood that the conditions of abuse and neglect had been or could be substantially corrected in the reasonable future. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying Mother's request for a post-adjudicatory improvement period or in its termination of Mother's parental rights to J.C. View "In re J.C." on Justia Law

The Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) filed an abuse and neglect petition against Mother. The basis of the petition was the allegation that Mother intentionally abused two unrelated, non-household member children who were left in her care. At the outset of the adjudication hearing, Mother relinquished her parental rights to Daughter in lieu of proceeding with the hearing. The circuit court accepted the relinquishment and denied Mother's request for post-termination visitation without receiving evidence pertaining to the request. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) where during the pendency of an abuse and neglect proceeding, a parent offers to voluntarily relinquish her parental rights and that relinquishment is accepted by the court, the relinquishment may be used as the basis of an order of adjudication of abuse and neglect of that parent of her children; (2) the circuit court erred in failing to enter an order of adjudication; and (3) the circuit court erred in failing to conduct a hearing and receive evidence on the issue of post-termination visitation. View "In re Marley M." on Justia Law

Petitioner in this case was the court-appointed guardian of eight-year-old Haylea. Respondents were Haylea's biological parents (Mother and Father). Upon a petition by Mother, the circuit court terminated the infant guardianship between Petitioner and Haylea and ordered Petitioner to return certain funds paid to her by the Social Security Administration on behalf of Haylea. The court also imposed a monetary sanction for each day the funds were not returned. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the circuit court's order insofar as it terminated Petitioner's guardianship of Haylea; but (2) reversed the portion of the order directing the return of funds and imposing a monetary sanction against Petitioner, holding that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to order that the funds be returned, and consequently, the monetary penalty was moot. View "In re Haylea G." on Justia Law