Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

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

Wife filed for divorce from Husband. In its decree of divorce and final order, the family court awarded permanent spousal support in the amount of $1,600 per month for Wife, found that Husband was a greater contributor to the breakdown of the marriage than Wife, and required that Husband pay $44,314 in equitable distribution to Wife. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) there was an insufficient factual basis in the record for the Court to determine whether the $1,600 spousal support award was appropriate; and (2) because the family court did not make findings of fact as to the value of the marital interest in the home, the court erred in requiring Husband to pay $44,314 in equitable distribution to Wife. Remanded. View "Collisi v. Collisi" on Justia Law

After Stepfather was arrested and admitted to sexual abuse of one of Mother's children, the Department removed Mother's two children from the home and filed an abuse and neglect petition against Mother. After an adjudicatory hearing, the circuit court found that the children were abused. The court also denied Mother's motion for a post-adjudicatory improvement period. Later, the circuit court entered a dispositional order terminating Mother's parental rights to the two children. Mother appealed, asserting that her due process rights were violated, that no imminent danger existed at the time her children were taken into custody, that she should have been granted an improvement period, and that the lower court failed to impose the least restrictive alternative disposition so as to protect the best interests of her children. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the termination of Mother's parental rights, holding that the circuit court did not err in its judgment; but (2) remanded for a determination of whether the permanent placement of the children with their biological father was appropriate. View "In re Timber M." on Justia Law

The circuit court adjudicated Mother and Father abusive and neglectful and terminated their parental rights to three children. Mother and Father appealed, contending, among other things, that the circuit court erred in finding that an altercation involving Father and their grandfather, which was witnessed by the children, constituted abuse and/or neglect. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the Department of Health and Human Resources failed to properly amend the abuse and neglect petition prior to adjudication, and the circuit court failed to permit proper amendment post-adjudication, such to encompass all of the allegations made evident during the course of the proceeding; and (2) the circuit court's analysis and findings in support of the disposition were deficient. Remanded. View "In re Lilith H." on Justia Law

The Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) filed an abuse and neglect petition against Mother and Father, the biological parents of two girls. After an adjudicatory hearing establishing the children were abused and neglected, Father voluntarily relinquished his parental rights. Mother was granted a post-adjudicatory improvement period. The circuit court later granted Mother a one-year rehabilitation period, finding that Mother benefitted from the services provided. DHHR subsequently filed a motion to terminate Mother's parental rights. After a dispositional hearing, the circuit court terminated Mother's parental rights, finding, among other things, that Mother participated in rehabilitative services but failed to benefit from them in ways that would protect the children. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that neglect and parental unfitness were not established by clear, cogent, and convincing grounds. Remanded for development of a reunification plan. View "In re Jessica M." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were six custodial parents of children who were owed child support from the noncustodial parent suing on behalf of their respective children. Defendants included the Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR), the Support Enforcement Commission (SEC), and the Bureau for Child Support Enforcement (BCSE). In each case, child support orders were entered requiring the noncustodial parents to pay a certain amount of child support each month, but the orders were not preserved, and significant portions of the child support payments in arrears were barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants failed to reduce their respective support arrearages to judgment and/or to renew such judgments, thus causing their claims to become time-barred. The circuit court concluded that further factual development was necessary to determine whether Plaintiffs had a private cause of action under the statutes governing child support enforcement. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for entry of an order granting Defendants' motions to dismiss, holding that Plaintiffs did not have a private cause of action under the statutes governing collection of child support by the BCSE. View "Fucillo v. Kerner" on Justia Law