Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court affirming the judgment of the family court awarding Jennifer W. $10,000 of spousal support, payable over twelve months, holding that the family court's award of spousal support in gross was error.Jennifer filed for divorce from her husband Michael W. after nearly nineteen years of marriage. The family court entered an order awarding "spousal support in gross" of $10,000. Jennifer appealed, arguing that the family court abused its discretion by awarding "lump sum" alimony instead of permanent spousal support. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed, holding that the in gross award was clearly inadequate and constituted an abuse of discretion. View "Jennifer W. v. Michael W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court dismissing the underlying abuse and neglect petition against Father and remanded for the circuit court to adjudicate him as a neglectful parent, holding that the circuit court erred in dismissing the abuse and neglect petition.As to the merits of the underlying abuse and neglect allegations, the circuit court denied adjudication, concluding that a prior decision by the Court dictated its decision. The court then "reluctantly" ordered that the State return the child to Father despite his methamphetamine use. The child's guardian ad litem appealed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for the circuit court to adjudicate Father as a neglectful parent, holding that the case that the circuit court relied on was materially distinguishable from this case and that a parent threatens his child's well-being when he chronically abuses methamphetamine while entrusted as the child's custodian. View "In re S.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition precluding the circuit court from enforcing its September 30, 2022 order denying the Delaware Tribe of Indians' motion to transfer the underlying abuse and neglect proceedings to the District Court of the Delaware Tribe pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. 1901 to -1963, holding that the circuit court erred in denying the motion to transfer this action to the tribal court.The Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) filed a second amended abuse and neglect petition alleging that Father abandoned I.R. Father, who claimed to be a member of the Tribe, later indicated his desire to voluntarily relinquish his parental rights. The Tribe successfully moved to intervene in the proceedings, after which the court concluded that the ICWA was not applicable to these proceedings. The court thus denied the Tribe's motion to transfer this action to the tribal court. This petition seeking a writ of prohibition followed. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that the circuit court (1) erred in determining that the ICWA was inapplicable to this case; and (2) clearly erred in determining that good cause existed to deny transfer of this matter to the tribal court. View "State ex rel. Del. Tribe of Indians v. Honorable Nowicki-Eldridge" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the circuit court terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father after issuing a ruling adjudicating them as abusive and neglectful, holding that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction.The conduct leading to the subject abuse and neglect petition occurred while a Pennsylvania family was at a relative's home in West Virginia. The circuit court exercised temporary emergency jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody and Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act and temporarily removed the children from the care of their parents. The circuit court adjudicated Parents as abusive and neglectful before contacting Parents' home state of Pennsylvania about jurisdiction. The circuit court entered the adjudicatory order after Pennsylvania declined jurisdiction. The court then entered its order terminating Parents' parental rights. The Supreme Court vacated the order, holding that the limitations of the circuit court's temporary emergency jurisdiction did not permit it to entertain an adjudication of the abuse and neglect petition unless and until Pennsylvania declined jurisdiction. View "In re A.T.-1" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the circuit court denying Petitioners' motion to intervene in this abuse and neglect case involving their niece, G.G., holding that the circuit court did not err in denying the motion.The West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources instituted an abuse and neglect proceeding against G.G.'s mother and father. Ultimately, G.G.'s biological father voluntarily relinquished his parental rights, and G.G.'s mother's parental rights were involuntarily terminated after a hearing. Thereafter, Respondents, G.G.'s foster parents, filed a motion to intervene in the abuse and neglect proceedings seeking to adopt G.G. Petitioners then filed their motion to intervene, seeking permanent placement of G.G. The circuit court granted Respondents' motion and denied Petitioners' motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no basis to set aside the circuit court's determination. View "In re G.G." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court terminating Mother's parental and custodial rights due to her substance abuse problem, holding that the circuit court did not err in terminating Mother's rights and in declining to extend her improvement period or grant an additional, post-dispositional improvement period.After a dispositional hearing, the circuit court denied Mother's motion for a post-dispositional improvement period and terminated her parental and custodial rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err by (1) refusing to extend Mother's post-adjudicatory improvement period; (2) denying Mother's motion for a post-dispositional improvement period; and (3) terminating Mother's parental and custodial rights. View "In re H.D." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the family court concluding that a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) entered in 2001, rather than a final order of divorce, must control the division of Husband's retirement benefit, holding that Husband's motion to vacate the QDRO was untimely under W. Va. R. Civ. P. 60(b).The parties in this case were divorced by a final order entered by the circuit court in 2000, and the circuit court entered a QDRO in 2001. In 2020, Husband filed a motion to vacate the QDRO, arguing that Wife was only entitled to the amount contained in the divorce order. The family court denied the motion after determining that the QDRO and final divorce order contained conflicting terms regarding the division of Husband's retirement benefit, and therefore, the QDRO must be enforced. The Supreme Court affirmed after considering Husband's argument pursuant to Rule 60(b), holding that Husband's requested relief was not timely sought. View "Carl A. v. Deborah A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the portion of the adjudicatory and dispositional orders culminating in the termination of Petitioners' parental rights to four of the seven children at issue in this case and affirmed the termination of Petitioners' parental rights as to the remaining children, holding that the circuit court erred in part.In the underlying proceedings the circuit court terminated the parental, custodial, and guardianship rights to seven children, three of whom resided in the home at the time the abuse and neglect petition was filed and the other four of whom were in legal guardianships with various relatives. The Supreme Court vacated the orders in part, holding (1) there was ample support for the termination of Petitioners' parental rights as to the children who resided in the home; and (2) the circuit court failed to make adequate findings to support its exercise of jurisdiction over the children in legal guardianships. View "In re B.V." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court refusing to adjudicate Father as an abusive and neglectful parent and remanded the case, holding that the circuit court erred in concluding that Father did not abandon Child.Father was identified as the father of Child, who was removed from the home of his mother because of drug use and other conditions, and the pending abuse and neglect petition was amended to add him as an alleged neglectful parent. The circuit court declined to make a finding of abandonment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the evidence showed that Father demonstrated a settled purpose to forgo his responsibilities and duties to Child and thus abandoned him. View "In re C.M.-1" on Justia Law

In this abuse and neglect matter, the Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus compelling the circuit court to reunify Daughter with Parents and to remove Kinship Parents' party status in the underlying action, holding that Daughter and Parents had a clear legal right to reunification, and the circuit court had a clear legal duty to order that reunification.Upon filing the underlying petition, the Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) removed Daughter from Father's home and placed her with Kinship Parents. After Parents successfully completed post-adjudicatory improvement periods all parties recommended reunification of the family. The circuit court concluded that the DHHR was required to move for termination of Parents' parental rights under W. Va. Code 49-4-605(a)(1) because Daughter had been in "foster care" for more than fifteen months. The Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus, holding that there was a clear legal right to reunification and a clear legal duty to order that reunification and that there was no other adequate remedy available. View "State ex rel. L.D. v. Honorable Cohee" on Justia Law