Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The circuit court found Frieda, Cordelia's elderly mother, to be a protected person. After determining that Cordelia was exploiting Frieda, neglecting her needs, and mishandling her finances, the court directed Cordelia to turn over to Frieda's conservator a full accounting of what she had done with Frieda's assets. Cordelia failed to comply with the order. The mental hygiene commissioner subsequently found Cordelia to be in contempt for failing to account for the disposition of assets belonging to her mother. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the circuit court's finding that Cordelia was in contempt; (2) affirmed that portion of the $50 per diem contempt sanction that applied prospectively from the actual date of the entry of the order of contempt; but (3) reversed that portion of the sanction that was retroactive, and reversed the sanction insofar as it purported to be for "compensation or damages." View "In re Frieda Q." on Justia Law

This case involved Hunter, who was seventeen months old at the time an abuse and neglect petition was filed. Both of Hunter's biological parents had their parental rights terminated. Hunter was placed with foster parents, and Hunter's grandmother (Grandmother) was allowed to have visits with Hunter twice a month. Grandmother later petitioned the circuit court for additional contact with Hunter. The circuit court granted the petition in an order that was entered in the middle of the foster parents' six-month adoption waiting period. After entry of the order, the issue arose as to whether a grandmother can continue to receive visitation after a child has been adopted by a non-relative. The circuit court submitted the certified question to the Supreme Court, which answered the question in the negative, holding that the Grandparent Visitation Act does not provide for continued grandparent visitation after a child is adopted by a non-relative. The Court then vacated the circuit court's order granting visitation to Grandmother. View "In re Hunter H." on Justia Law

In the underlying abuse and neglect petition, the circuit court adjudicated that respondent parents had neglected their four infant children. The parents then moved for a post-adjudication improvement period. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHR) and the Guardian ad Litem (GAL) objected. After a hearing, the circuit court granted the parents a six month post-adjudication improvement period. A written order was entered on June 19, 2012. On September 25, 2012, the DHHR and GAL filed a joint petition seeking a writ of prohibition to bar enforcement of the circuit court's order, arguing that the circuit court erred by not allowing evidence of the parents' pre-adjudication neglect and that the parents failed to meet the requisite legal standards for granting a post-adjudication improvement period. The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of prohibition, holding that DHHR and GAL failed to demonstrate that the circuit court (1) lacked jurisdiction to grant the parents a six month post-adjudication improvement period, or (2) exceeded its legitimate powers in granting the post-adjudication improvement period. View "State ex rel. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. Circuit Court" on Justia Law

Petitioner claimed to be Child's psychological parent. Child's biological mother had virtually no contact with Child. When Child's biological, custodial father (Respondent) pleaded guilty to several crimes, Petitioner filed a motion to intervene in an existing family court action and sought either shared parenting with Respondent or guardianship of Child if Father was sentenced to prison. Father petitioned the circuit court for a writ of prohibition, claiming that the family court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider a motion for shared parenting or guardianship. The circuit court granted the writ, thus halting the family court's consideration of Petitioner's motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the family court clearly had subject matter jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's motion, and therefore, the circuit court erred in issuing its order granting a writ of prohibition. View "Brooke B. v. Ray C." on Justia Law

The Department of Health and Human Resources appealed a circuit court's order dismissing a petition alleging a father had abused and neglected his daughter. After vesting legal custody of the child with the child's grandmother - a disposition the Department supported - the circuit court determined that further hearings on the petition would not be in the best interests of the child. The Department asserted on appeal that the circuit court was still required to formally determine whether abuse or neglect occurred before the petition could be dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in its finding that full adjudication of the petition was not in the best interests of the child. View "In re D.P." on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the circuit court's order granting permanent guardianship of her two children to Respondent, their paternal grandmother. Petitioner asserted that the circuit court erred in exercising jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) and by transferring custody from a biological mother without a finding of unfitness. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's order awarding guardianship to Respondent, restored Petitioner's custodial rights, and remanded the matter, holding (1) it was error for the circuit court to exercise jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the UCCJEA; and (2) the circuit court erred in refusing to consider the evidence of abuse and neglect underlying this guardianship proceeding and in transferring custody of the minor children from a natural parent without a finding of unfitness. View "In re K.R." on Justia Law

This was an appeal by Petitioner from an order of the circuit court accepting the voluntary relinquishment of parental rights by Father to his two eldest children and dismissing his two youngest children from the case. Petitioner was the mother of the two youngest children, who lived in Maryland. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's order, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by (1) accepting Father's voluntary relinquishment of parental rights to two of his children and dismissing two other children without holding a full evidentiary hearing to address the specific allegations of abuse and neglect; (2) failing to grant the motion for the appointment of a separate guardian ad litem for Father's children residing in Maryland; (3) refusing to conduct an in camera hearing with the two oldest children so the children could inform the court about the specific conduct of their father as well as their wishes regarding the termination of their father's parental rights; and (4) dismissing the two children residing in Maryland and failing to hold a hearing regarding the abuse and neglect issues involving those children. Remanded. View "In re T.W." on Justia Law

This was an appeal by Petitioner from an order of the circuit court placing Petitioner's grandson, Aaron H., a minor, in the home of his foster parents for the purpose of adoption. Petitioner contended he should have been considered as an adoptive placement for Aaron H. At issue on appeal was whether the circuit court erred in placing the child with his foster parents for adoption rather than with his grandfather in view of the statutory preference for grandparent placement. The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the circuit court and ordered that Aaron H. be placed for adoption in the home of the foster parents, holding that the circuit court did not err in approving the adoption of Aaron H. by his foster parents, as the grandparent placement failed to serve the best interests of the child. View "In re Aaron H." on Justia Law

Petitioner was the mother of six children, three of whom were minors. Respondents were Mother's ex-husbands and fathers to the minor children. Upon her divorces, Mother received primary custody of the minor children. Fathers later filed motions for modification of custody, which the family court denied. The circuit court reversed, finding the family court had abused its discretion, and placed the three children in the primary custody of their fathers. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the family court erred in concluding that a substantial change in circumstances was not present under the facts of the case, and the circuit court did not err by reversing the family court's order. View "T.H. v. D.K." on Justia Law

After an approximately twenty-one year marriage, Constance Mayle and Mark Mayle were divorced. The family court ordered Mark to pay Constance permanent spousal support in the amount of $5,500 per month, with an additional $1,500 per month for six months designated as rehabilitative support. After a period of ten years, the family court ordered that the monthly spousal support be reduced to $1,500 per month. The family court denied Constance's request for reimbursement spousal support and for attorney fees and costs. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) there was no error in the award of rehabilitative spousal support for six months or in the amount of the permanent spousal support for the first ten years; but (2) the circuit court and family court erred in (a) reducing the amount of spousal support to $1,500 after ten years, and (b) denying Constance's request for attorney fees. Remanded. View "Mayle v. Mayle" on Justia Law