Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

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

Petitioner, who was fourteen years old at the time, stipulated that she was absent from school on nine days within a five-week period. Petitioner denied she was an habitual truant because six of the nine days were due to an out-of-school suspension. The circuit court concluded that the total nine absences constituted habitual truancy, adjudicated Petitioner to be a status offender, placed her on probation, and ordered Petitioner be placed in the legal custody of the Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR). The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in adjudicating Petitioner a status offender and in placing her on supervised probation; but (2) erred in failing to make adequate findings regarding transfer of legal custody to the DHHR and in exceeding its jurisdiction by attempting to impose probation beyond the age of eighteen. View "In re Brandi B." on Justia Law

After Petitioner was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) notified Petitioner that his license would be revoked for DUI. Petitioner timely requested an administrative hearing. Because Petitioner's arresting officer did not appear at the hearing, the Commissioner of the DMV reversed the order of revocation and dismissed the case. Petitioner then pled guilty to DUI. When the DMV received notice of the guilty plea, it revoked Petitioner's license for six months. Petitioner filed a petition for writ of prohibition. The circuit court dissolved the revocation order and reinstated Petitioner's license, finding that the Commissioner's order rescinding the previous administrative revocation served to reinstate Petitioner's license and that subsequent revocation was prohibited by operation of W. Va. Code 17C-5A-1a(d). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in its interpretation and application of section 17C-5A-1a(d) to reverse Petitioner's mandatory revocation. View "Dale v. Knopp" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree, death of a child by a guardian or custodian, and child abuse resulting in injury. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err by (1) granting a change in venue; (2) allowing testimony by a State's witness concerning polygraph test results without ordering a mistrial or providing a curative instruction because the polygraph references were not elicited from or about Defendant; (3) deeming evidence of a child psychologist regarding the character of the accused to be admissible; and (4) permitting the introduction of photographs of the victim taken during the time she was unconscious in the hospital. Lastly, the Court ruled that Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was not adequately developed for consideration on direct appeal. View "State v. Meadows" on Justia Law

Petitioner homeowners filed suit against Respondent, an entity that had been hired to perform emergency services for damages to Petitioners' home as the result of a sewage backup, asserting claims for personal injury and property damage arising from Respondent's alleged negligence in failing to detect and/or remediate mold in their home following the sewer backup that flooded the home with water and waste. The circuit court held that the contract between the parties, which included a mold/mildew/bacteria waiver, was a complete bar to Petitioners' claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the contract was not substantively unconscionable; and (2) allowing Respondent to disclaim liability for mold damage did not violate public policy. View "Pingley v. Perfection Plus Turbo-Dry, LLC" on Justia Law

Brandon White's license was revoked by the Commissioner of the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles for driving under the influence of alcohol. Following an unsuccessful challenge before the Office of Administrative Hearings, White filed an appeal in circuit court. The circuit court found White's appeal to be timely. The Commission filed a petition for relief in prohibition, contending that White's appeal was not timely filed, and therefore, the circuit court exceeded its jurisdiction in declaring White's appeal timely. The Supreme Court granted the petition, holding that White's appeal was not filed within the statutory time limits and, consequently, the circuit court exceeded its jurisdiction in declaring the appeal timely and was prohibited from further consideration of White's appeal. View "State ex rel. Comm'r, Div. of Motor Vehicles v. Circuit Court" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with driving under the influence, a misdemeanor. Defendant filed a motion in the magistrate court for breath test discovery. The Respondent magistrate ordered the State to produce the discovery. Before the circuit court, the State filed a petition for writ of prohibition seeking to prohibit the Respondent from enforcing the order. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying the writ of prohibition, holding that neither the magistrate court nor the circuit court erred in allowing the discovery sought by Defendant, as the evidence was both relevant and material to his case. View "State ex rel. Games-Neely v. Circuit Court" 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

Defendant was sentenced to life in prison without mercy after he pled guilty in 1992 to murder in the first degree. No appeal of Defendant's 1993 sentencing order was timely filed, but in 2010, Defendant filed a pro se petition with the Supreme Court seeking habeas relief. The Court granted relief by ordering that Defendant be re-sentenced for purposes of presenting his petition for appeal. Resentencing orders enlarging the appeal period were entered by the lower court in 2011, after which Defendant filed his appeal with the Supreme Court asserting procedural and constitutional error. Specifically, Defendant contended that the plea should be vacated and the case remanded for trial because the plea he entered was not knowingly and intelligently made. The Supreme Court affirmed the 2011 sentencing order of the circuit court, holding that no valid basis existed for the procedural or constitutional error asserted. View "State v. Boyce" 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