Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

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

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