Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court vacated for want of subject-matter jurisdiction a family court order granting permanent guardianship of three children to their maternal grandparents.This case was originally removed to family court to circuit court because the preceding petition for temporary guardianship was based on allegations of abuse and neglect. However, contrary to the Rules of Practice and Procedure of Minor Guardianship Proceedings and the Rules of Practice and Procedure for Family Court, the circuit court remanded this case back to family court to proceed as a guardianship case rather than an abuse and neglect case. The Supreme Court held that because the allegations of abuse and neglect were substantiated, the circuit court erred in concluding that a then-temporary guardianship order negated the need for the abuse and neglect petition and therefore erred in remanding the matter to family court. View "In re Guardianship of K.W." on Justia Law

In this appeal from the circuit court’s reversal of a permanent alimony award, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the circuit court and remanded the case for reinstatement of the family court’s order awarding Wife permanent alimony in the amount of $1,500 per month, holding that the circuit court’s overturning of the family court’s findings was in error.The family court ordered Husband to pay permanent alimony to Wife in the amount of $1,500 per month. The circuit court reversed the award and remanded to the family court for calculation of spousal support “in accordance” with its order. On remand, the family court ordered Husband to pay Wife $439.02 per month. The circuit court refused Wife’s appeal. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in overturning the family court’s findings and inexplicably replaced the family court’s credibility determinations with determinations of its own. View "Cowger v. Cowger" on Justia Law

In this appeal from the circuit court’s reversal of a permanent alimony award, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the circuit court and remanded the case for reinstatement of the family court’s order awarding Wife permanent alimony in the amount of $1,500 per month, holding that the circuit court’s overturning of the family court’s findings was in error.The family court ordered Husband to pay permanent alimony to Wife in the amount of $1,500 per month. The circuit court reversed the award and remanded to the family court for calculation of spousal support “in accordance” with its order. On remand, the family court ordered Husband to pay Wife $439.02 per month. The circuit court refused Wife’s appeal. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in overturning the family court’s findings and inexplicably replaced the family court’s credibility determinations with determinations of its own. View "Cowger v. Cowger" on Justia Law

The circuit court erred in applying the grandparent preference contained in W. Va. Code 49-4-114(a)(3) when it permanently selected the grandparents of twins K.E. and K.E. for permanent placement.The twins were in foster care when the circuit court terminated the parental rights of their biological parents. Both the twins’ foster parents and their paternal grandparents sought to provide the twins with a permanent home. The circuit court ruled that the twins should be permanently placed with their grandparents. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the best interest of the twins were best served by permanent placement with their foster parents, not their grandparents. View "In re K.E." on Justia Law

J.G. was born at 34 weeks’ gestation with drugs in his system. Noting mother’s prior involuntary termination of parental rights, the Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) filed an abuse and neglect petition. J.G. was placed in foster care with petitioners in February 2015 and remains there. J.G. requires medical monitoring and treatment. The birth parents canceled multiple visits, frequently fell asleep during visits, failed to return calls from DHHR, and had multiple positive drug screens. The circuit court granted a six-month improvement period. DHHR indicated that the improvement period was a failure. Subsequent psychological evaluations indicated little likelihood that the parents would improve. The court granted another six-month improvement period, during which the parents were evicted, had positive drug tests, and engaged in a physical altercation. The court granted two more six-month improvement periods. During an overnight visit, a CPS worker arrived at the parents’ home to pick up J.G and observed large amounts of blood. She found J.G., screaming and in a saturated diaper, on the bed beside his father, who was unresponsive. Mother “was high as a kite.” The guardian ad litem and DHHR requested termination. Despite observations that the infant was bonded with the foster family and that returning J.G., to the parents “could be traumatizing” and continuing positive drug screens, the court ordered transition of J.G., to the parents’ custody. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals reversed. The circuit court failed to comply with the requirements of West Virginia Code 49-4-610 and the Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect and abused its discretion in failing to terminate parental rights. View "In re: J.G., II" on Justia Law

In this abuse and neglect proceeding, the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s adjudicatory order finding Father to be an abusing and neglectful parent but set aside the court’s order that adopted the parenting plan recommended by the children’s guardian ad litem.This proceeding concerned three children and their biological parents. Father appealed from the adjudicatory order finding him to be an abusing and neglectful parent and also appealed from a later order adopting the parenting plan recommended by the guardian ad litem. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the adjudicatory order was supported by clear and convincing evidence that Father was an abusing and neglectful parent in relation to the children; but (2) in view of updates to Rule 11(j) of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure, the circumstances regarding the children changed to the extent that the parenting plan was no longer viable in the absence of additional findings by the circuit court. View "In re J.P." on Justia Law

In this abuse and neglect proceeding, the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s adjudicatory order finding Father to be an abusing and neglectful parent but set aside the court’s order that adopted the parenting plan recommended by the children’s guardian ad litem.This proceeding concerned three children and their biological parents. Father appealed from the adjudicatory order finding him to be an abusing and neglectful parent and also appealed from a later order adopting the parenting plan recommended by the guardian ad litem. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the adjudicatory order was supported by clear and convincing evidence that Father was an abusing and neglectful parent in relation to the children; but (2) in view of updates to Rule 11(j) of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure, the circumstances regarding the children changed to the extent that the parenting plan was no longer viable in the absence of additional findings by the circuit court. View "In re J.P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the circuit court awarding guardianship of A.C., a twelve-year-old girl, to A.C.’s grandmother, A.H. Petitioner, A.C., through her guardian ad litem, objected to the guardianship award and subsequently appealed, arguing that the circuit court’s award of guardianship to the grandmother was not in the child’s best interests and failed to include an appropriate evaluation of the Guardianship Screening Factors enumerated in Rule 10 of the West Virginia Rules of Practice and Procedure for Minor Guardianship Proceedings. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed, holding that the Guardianship Screening Factors, when applied to the facts of this case, indicated that the grandmother was not a viable candidate to serve as guardian to A.C. The court remanded the matter for entry of an order awarding guardianship to E.B., the godmother of A.C. View "In re Guardianship of A.C." on Justia Law

A parent who had court-appointed counsel in an abuse and neglect proceeding was not entitled to representation by court-appointed counsel once the abuse and neglect proceeding was dismissed and further action was brought in a domestic relations case.The Supreme Court held that, in this case, the circuit court correctly determined that because it had dismissed the abuse and neglect proceeding, Father was no longer entitled to court-appointed counsel to resolve a motion for custody, as the proceeding was a domestic relations case. The court, however, reversed the circuit court’s decision to continue the appointment of the guardian ad litem for the children in the domestic relations proceeding, holding (1) pursuant to Rule 47 of the West Virginia Rules of Practice and Procedure for Family Court, courts shall not routinely assign guardians ad litem for children in a domestic relations case but, rather, shall appoint a guardian ad litem only where the court is presented with substantial allegations of domestic abuse or other serious issues; and (2) in this case, the circuit court’s appointment of the guardian ad litem in the domestic relations proceeding was in error. View "In re Interest of Z.D." on Justia Law

In an appeal from a divorce action Wife argued that the circuit court abused its discretion with regard to a permanent spousal support award of $4,000 per month and challenged the circuit court’s equitable distribution findings, specifically, classification of certain retirement accounts of Husband as premarital and classification of certain expenditures Husband made as marital expenses. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the circuit court’s order with regard to the equitable distribution findings with the exception of the finding on Husband’s premarital portion of his retirement account, holding the evidence showed $249,685 of that account was premarital; and (2) reversed the award of spousal support, holding that Wife was “harshly short-changed, considering the great disparity of the parties’ income.” View "Mulugeta v. Misailidis" on Justia Law