Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court granting Respondent's petition to adopt H.G., holding that there was insufficient to show that the court abused its discretion in granting the petition for adoption.When she filed her petition to adopt H.G., Respondent had been H.G.'s primary caretaker for seven years and his legal guardian for three years, and had had sole discretion regarding visitation with the child for one year. Petitioner, the child's birth mother, opposed the adoption. After a hearing, the circuit court granted the petition on the grounds that Petitioner had abandoned the child. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in concluding (1) involuntary wage garnishment in 2019 did not constitute financial support; and (2) Petitioner failed to visit or communicate with the child for at least six months preceding the petition. View "In re Adoption of H.G." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the disposition order of the circuit court terminating Father's parental rights to his infant child, holding that the circuit court did not err in terminating Father's parental rights in lieu of granting him an improvement period.The circuit court adjudicated Father of being abusive and neglectful because his incarceration rendered him unable to care for the child and unable to protect the child from Mother's substance abuse. Petitioner appealed, arguing that the circuit court's analysis under In re Cecil T., 717 S.E.2d 873 (W. Va. 2011), was insufficient. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court failed to conduct an appropriate Cecil T. analysis; but (2) under this Court's own Cecil T. review, Petitioner's parental rights should be terminated. View "In re A.F." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition sought by Petitioners, three boys, prohibiting the circuit court from extending the improvement period of Respondent, their mother, holding that Petitioners showed that they were entitled to the writ.Specifically, Petitioners requested a writ that either directed the circuit court to set their case for a dispositional hearing or that commanded the circuit court to terminate Respondent's parental rights. The Supreme Court granted the writ and remanded this case to the circuit court, holding that Respondent's improvement period was improper from the beginning and that the circuit court committed clear error in extending her improvement period. View "State ex rel. P.G.-1 v. Honorable Wilson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court terminating Parents' parental rights, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.Parents stipulated to having neglected their three minor children. At disposition, the circuit court found that Petitioners' progress was insufficient to regain custody of their children. The court proceeded to terminate Parents' parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in determining that there was no reasonable likelihood the conditions of abuse or neglect could be substantially corrected in the near future, necessitating the termination of Parents' parental rights. View "In re D.P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the circuit court terminating Father's parental rights to his child, holding that Father's due process rights were violated.On appeal, Petitioner argued that he was not afforded proper notice of the proceedings when he was served by publication in a Boone County newspaper. The record evidence showed that the West Department of Health and Human Resources knew that Petitioner was in North Carolina and not West Virginia and that, by the time it served him by publication in a North Carolina newspaper, the circuit court had already adjudicated Petitioner. The Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's order, holding that the circuit court erred in adjudicating Petitioner's rights without proper service. View "In re L.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court terminating Father's parental rights to his child, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.After a hearing, the circuit court found that there was no reasonable likelihood that Father could substantially correct the conditions of abuse and neglect in the near future and that the welfare of the child necessitated termination of Father's parental rights. On appeal, Father argued that the circuit court erred by terminating his parental rights instead of imposing a W.Va. Code 49-4-604(c)(5) disposition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in terminating Father's parental rights. View "In re L.W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court terminating Father's parental rights to his eleven-year-old daughter, holding that the circuit court erred by finding that the statutory grounds for termination were met.For the past seven years, the child in this case had lived with Respondents, her maternal great-grandparents. After Father sought custody of the child, an abuse and neglect petition was filed against him. After a hearing, the circuit court ordered that Father's rights be terminated based on his absence from and lack of involvement in the child's life and concluding that it was in the child's best interest to remain in Father's' custody. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, the circuit court erred in terminating Father's parental rights. View "In re S.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order entered by the circuit court terminating Father's improvement period and terminating his parental rights to his son, M.O., holding that there was no error on the part of the circuit court.On appeal, the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Services and the child's guardian ad litem both argued that termination of Father's parental rights and his improvement period was required even though he complied earlier with services provided during his improvement period. The Supreme Court agreed and affirmed, holding (1) when considering the entirety of the circumstances, Father failed sufficiently improve to justify the return of M.O. to his home; and (2) the circuit court did not err in concluding that there was no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse and neglect could substantially be corrected in the near future and that it was in the best interests of the child that Father's parental rights be terminated. View "In re M.O." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the final order of the circuit court terminating Mother's rights to her infant son in an abuse and neglect proceeding, holding that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act.The West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) filed an abuse and neglect petition alleging that the child was abused and/or neglected. The petition stated that Mother and the child were residents of Tazewell County, Virginia but that the circuit court had jurisdiction because West Virginia was the home state of the child at the commencement of this proceeding. When DHHR was granted emergency legal custody of the child, Mother returned home to Virginia. The circuit court adjudicated Mother as an abusing parent and subsequently terminated her rights. The Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's judgment, holding that the circuit court did not have subject matter jurisdiction in this proceeding. View "In re Z.H." on Justia Law

In this petition challenging two circuit court rulings the Supreme Court affirmed the ruling dismissing Petitioner's writ of prohibition and reversed the monetary sanction the circuit court imposed on Petitioner's attorney, Gregory Schillace, holding that Schillace was entitled to a jury trial on this sanction.Petitioner filed a complaint for declaratory relief, writ of prohibition and other relief seeking to enforce the terms of a divorce settlement entered into by Petitioner and his former wife and seeking to prevent the family court from proceeding with a contempt hearing against Petitioner and Schillace. At issue was a monetary sanction the circuit court imposed on Schillace and the circuit court's ruling dismissing Petitioner's writ of prohibition. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court correctly dismissed Petitioner's writ of prohibition; and (2) Schillace was entitled to a jury trial on the monetary sanction. View "Rector v. Ross" on Justia Law