Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

S.H. was adjudicated to have been neglected by her maternal grandmother and guardian, M.C. M.C. was granted an improvement period, but the improvement period was abruptly terminated by the court’s order, and M.C.’s guardianship of S.H. was subsequently terminated. The court affirmed the determination that S.H. was a neglected child, finding no error as to that conclusion. However, the court concluded that termination of M.C.’s improvement period was erroneous because M.C. was in full compliance with the terms and conditions of her improvement period. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with directions. View "In Re: S.H." on Justia Law

The parties were divorced in 2012. The original order provided that, for tax exemption purposes, the father would claim Child B. and the mother would claim Child C. In 2014, mother sought modification of child support and medical support and requested an order providing that when one of the children reaches the age of majority, the remaining exemption should be rotated between the parents annually. Father requested the court to amend the order to include details of a joint parenting plan and to allocate the tax exemptions according to West Virginia Code 48-13-801.3, which requires that tax exemptions be proportioned between the parents according to income. After a remand from the circuit court, the family court clarified that the parties had agreed to “equal custodial allocation” and that the father had requested re-allocation of the tax exemptions only if no agreement was reached and observed: “It did not appear that the [mother’s] income and child support would be greater if the payor was awarded the exemption.” The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed, stating that the oral agreement regarding custodial allocation and other tangential issues did not eliminate the need to allocate the exemptions according to the statutory requirements, and remanded for financial analysis under the statute. View "Eric M. v. Laura M." on Justia Law

The West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) filed a petition alleging abuse and neglect against Father. After an adjudicatory hearing, the circuit court dismissed the abuse and neglect petition, concluding that DHHR failed to meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Father was abusive. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court’s dismissal of the abuse and neglect petition was clear error because the DHHR presented clear and convincing evidence that Father showed a sexually explicit video to two of his children and engaged in some sort of sexual conduct with one child. View "In re C.M." on Justia Law

In 2010, an abuse and neglect petition was filed alleging that Child’s mother (Mother) was under the influence of drugs while caring for Child. The Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) subsequently placed Child in the care of his paternal grandparents (Grandparents). In 2013, the circuit court held a permanency hearing and granted legal guardianship to Grandparents. Thereafter, Mother filed a petition to overturn legal guardianship, asserting that her recovery and continued sobriety constituted a material change in circumstances justifying a modification of the custody of Child. After a hearing held in 2015, the circuit court terminated Grandparents’ legal guardianship and ordered the transfer of Child to Mother. Grandparents appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that there was insufficient evidence in the record indicating that alteration of custody would serve Child’s best interests at this time. View "In re S.W." on Justia Law

The Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) filed an abuse and neglect petition against Parents. After an adjudicatory hearing on the DHHR’s petition, the circuit court granted the DHHR custody of Parents’ minor children, and the children were placed in foster care. Parents subsequently filed motions for improvement periods. After two evidentiary hearings, the circuit court entered a dispositional order denying Parents an improvement period and terminating Parents’ parental and custodial rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in denying Parents’ motions for improvement periods; and (2) did not err in terminating Parents’ parental and custodial rights. View "In re M.M." on Justia Law