Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

When Mother and Father divorced in Colorado, Mother was awarded primary custody of the parties' two minor children subject to visitation by Father, who subsequently moved to Virginia. Mother later moved with the children to West Virginia so the children could be closer to Father. Father then filed a motion for modification. The lower courts modified the parties' prior custodial arrangement and awarded primary custody to Father. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the lower courts erred in finding Mother's move to West Virginia was a substantial change in circumstances; (2) the lower courts erred in modifying custody based, in large part, on the fact that Father's new wife was a stay-at-home mom who could provide childcare; and (3) the best interests of the children were served by maintaining primary custodial responsibility with Mother. View "Andrea H. v. Jason R.C." on Justia Law

Mother had two infant twin boys, Joseph and Walter. Joseph died after ingesting a lethal dose of Suboxone. Neither the investigations by law enforcement nor Mother's inquiries into Joseph's death were able to determine how Joseph ingested the drug or where it originated. The West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) later filed an imminent danger petition alleging that Walter was a neglected and/or abused child based on the death of Joseph. After a hearing, the circuit court found (1) Mother neglected Walter and Joseph by failing to provide them with appropriate supervision the night of Joseph's death; and (2) Walter was a neglected child, and it was contrary to his welfare to reside with Mother in her home. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court clearly erred in concluding that Walter was a neglected child. View "In re Walter G." on Justia Law

Mother sought to change the name of Daughter. Mother filed a name change petition to request a hyphenated surname for Daughter. Father opposed the name change request, arguing that he was likely to be injured by the change of Daughter's name and that the alteration of Daughter's name would not significantly advance her best interests. The trial court allowed the requested hyphenated name change. Father appealed, arguing that the trial court failed properly to apply the standard governing a name change request. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that clear and convincing evidence did not support the finding that the name change would significantly advance the best interests of Daughter. View "In re Name Change of Jenna A.J." on Justia Law

After Petitioner's daughter, A.P., was born, Petitioner and A.P. lived with Petitioner's mother, Respondent. Two and one-half months later, Petitioner and A.P. moved out of Respondent's home. The relationship between Petitioner and Respondent subsequently deteriorated, and Petitioner prohibited further visitation between A.P. and Respondent. Respondent subsequently filed a petition for grandparent visitation. The family court awarded grandparent visitation to Respondent, and the circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the lower tribunals erred in finding that Respondent rebutted the statutory presumption against grandparent visitation by clear and convincing evidence that an award of grandparent visitation was in the best interest of A.P. View "In re Grandparent Visitation of A.P." on Justia Law

The Department of Health and Human Resources filed a petition to institute child abuse and neglect proceedings against the Father and Mother of twin boys, alleging that the twins were abused and/or neglected. After a six-month improvement period, the circuit court determined following a hearing that the children had been abused and terminated the parents' parental rights to the twins. The Supreme Court vacated the order of the circuit court, holding (1) the disposition in this case was frustrated when the circuit court refused to allow counsel to call a Child Protective Services worker and in-home services provider to the witness stand during the hearing; and (2) while the Department's petition to institute these proceedings alleged, in part, that Father had voluntarily relinquished his parental rights to a biological daughter after allegations of sexual abuse were substantiated, these prior substantiated allegations of sexual abuse must be more fully explored and addressed. Remanded for an expedited evidentiary hearing consistent with this opinion. View "In re Darrien B." on Justia Law

When Mother and Father were divorced they agreed Father would pay child support for the parties' two children in the amount of $700 per month. Father subsequently filed a petition to modify child support, asserting in part a change of employment income. Father had voluntarily quit a well-paying job with benefits to take a $10 per hour, part-time position with a company owned by his fiancee's mother. The family court decreased Father's child support obligation to $332 per month. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the family court used the incorrect legal standard in deciding the issue of income attribution. Remanded for the limited purpose of deciding the amount of Father's earning capacity based on his previous income and determining the amount of child support in accordance with the child support guidelines. View "Melinda H. v. William R." on Justia Law

Mother and Father had one child together. Mother and Father later divorced pursuant to an order in which Mother was granted primary custody of the child. Mother and her husband (Stepfather) subsequently filed a verified petition for adoption in which Stepfather sought to adopt the child. After an adoption hearing, the circuit court denied the adoption petition on the grounds that Father was current on his child support payments and had made minimum contact with the child such that the court could not find abandonment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court abused its discretion in finding that Respondent had not abandoned the child; and (2) it was in the best interest of the child to be adopted by Stepfather. Remanded for entry of an order granting the petition for adoption. View "Joshua D.R. v. David A.M." on Justia Law

Decedent died intestate as a result of a motor vehicle accident. Petitioner, the former spouse of Decedent, sought a share in the settlement proceeds from a wrongful death action based on her monthly receipt of payments from Decedent for a child support arrearage. The circuit court ruled that Petitioner was not entitled to a portion of the subject settlement funds because Petitioner could not demonstrate she was financially dependent on Decedent at the time of trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in ruling that Petitioner was not entitled to a share of the wrongful death settlement proceeds, as Petitioner's receipt of monthly arrearage payments was not sufficient to demonstrate the statutory requirement of financial dependence. View "Ellis v. Swisher" on Justia Law

Wife and Husband were divorced by order of the family court. Adopted into the final divorce order was an agreed parenting plan under which Mother was the primary custodial parent. After Father relocated to Pennsylvania, the parties were unable to reach an agreed-upon modification of the parenting plan. The primary dispute involved the transportation of the child for the purposes of Father's visitation. The circuit court found the parties had a "de facto" parenting plan under which Father was to provide all transportation for the child for purposes of visitation. In so finding, the circuit court reversed the final order of the family court, which provided that the parties share responsibility in the transportation of the child to facilitate Father's parenting time. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court committed error in finding that Mother was to be given deference to all parenting plan decisions. Remanded. View "Todd M.S. v. Julie M.G." on Justia Law

The family court granted Husband and Wife a divorce. The court awarded wife spousal support of $500 a month for thirty-six months; ruled that Husband must pay wife $80,390 in equitable distribution; provided an "in-kind" debt payment plan wherein Wife was to reimburse Husband one-half of any debt payments made to Husband's mother in connection with a loan; and awarded Wife attorney fees. The circuit court reversed, concluding (1) Wife was not entitled to spousal support and the amount in child support already paid by Husband should be deducted from the equitable distribution payment; (2) the family court erred in awarding attorney fees to Wife; and (3) Wife's repayment of her half of the loan should be deducted from Husband's payment of $80,390 to Wife. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded with directions that the order of the family court be reinstated, holding (1) the family court arrived at a fair and equitable grant of spousal support; (2) the family court was within its discretion in ordering the in-kind repayment of the loan and in ordering Husband to pay $80,390 to Petitioner in equitable distribution; and (3) the family court did not err in awarding attorney fees to Wife. View "Cochran v. Cochran" on Justia Law