Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the circuit court terminating Petitioner's parental rights to his six children and denying his motion to reconsider the court's prior order denying his motion for an improvement period, holding that there was no error.At an adjudicatory hearing, based on Petitioner's admissions to the unsuitable and unsafe living conditions at the time of the emergency removal, the circuit court adjudged the children to be neglected children. Petitioner moved for a post-adjudicatory improvement period to secure a more suitable residence that would be habitable for the children. The circuit court denied the motion. Thereafter, the court terminated Petitioner's parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in concluding (1) there was no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of neglect that led to the removal of the children could be corrected in the near future and that termination of Petitioner's parental rights was appropriate; and (2) termination of Petitioner's parental rights was necessary for the welfare of the children. View "In re J.D.-1" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court terminating Mother's parental rights to her five children, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Following a disposition hearing, the circuit court determined that Mother had not successfully completed her improvement period and terminated her parental rights. Mother appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred by terminating her parental rights based on the findings that she had continued to have a relationship with a certain person during her improvement period and that there was no reasonable likelihood of correcting the conditions of abuse and neglect in the near future. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the circuit court's determination. View "In re F.N." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the written dispositional orders entered by the circuit court terminating Mother's parental rights to her two children, holding that the dispositional orders failed to include findings of fact and conclusions of law necessary to support the termination of parental rights.The Department of Health and Human Resources filed a motion alleging that the termination of Mother's parental rights was required by W. Va. Code 49-4-605(a)(1) because the children had been in foster care for more than fifteen of the most recent twenty-two months. The Supreme Court vacated the orders below and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the circuit court (1) erroneously entered written dispositional orders that contained none of the findings required by W. Va. Code 49-4-604(c)(6) for termination of parental rights; and (2) lacked subject matter jurisdiction to terminate Mother's parental rights. View "In re C.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Petitioners' motion to intervene in the underlying child abuse and neglect proceedings and reunifying the child with Mother, holding that there was no error.Petitioners, the foster parents of the two children in this case, moved to intervene in the underlying proceedings, but the circuit court denied intervention. The court then ordered that the child be reunified with Mother. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court properly denied Petitioners' motion to intervene in the underlying child abuse and neglect proceedings. View "In re H.W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the circuit court dismissing the underlying abuse and neglect petition, holding that the circuit court's conduct during in camera interview of the children violated the West Virginia Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings, the West Virginia Rules of Evidence, and Supreme Court precedent.The West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources filed an abuse of neglect petition alleging that two minor children may have been sexually abused by Father. During the adjudicatory hearing, the circuit court conducted in camera interview of the children and accused the children of lying. The guardian ad litem for the children was present and failed to object to the court's conduct. Thereafter, the circuit court dismissed the abuse and neglect petition. The Supreme Court vacated the order below and remanded the matter for further proceedings before a different circuit judge with a new guardian ad litem, holding (1) the circuit court substantially disregarded and frustrated the procedures established by the relevant rules; and (2) the guardian ad litem's representation of the children was deficient. View "In re K.B.-R" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court affirming the family court's order setting aside a Mediated Settlement Agreement (MSA) between Petitioner and Respondent on the grounds that it was enforceable because there was no meeting of the minds, holding that there was no error.Petitioner filed for divorce from Respondent on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. The parties participated in mediation and entered into the MSA that gave rise to this action. After a hearing, the family court concluded that the parties did not have a "meeting of the minds" in reaching the MSA and determined that the entirety of the MSA was unenforceable. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the lower tribunals did not err in finding that the MSA was invalid. View "Donna S. v. Travis S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's order denying Father's motion to discharge his child support arrearage, holding that the circuit court did not err or abuse its discretion.After the parents of K.S. separated Father was ordered to pay mother child support. Ten years later, K.S. was removed from Mother's home due to a child abuse and neglect petition and placed in Father's custody. When Father took custody the circuit court suspended Father's child support obligation. Father, however, owed almost $25,000 in past unpaid child support and interest. Father filed a motion to discharge the child support arrearage, which the circuit court denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court properly found that it was prohibited from retroactively modifying or canceling child support awards except in limited circumstances not present in this case. View "In re K.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition sought to prevent the enforcement of an order of the circuit court that granted the motion filed by Respondents, the maternal grandparents of R.L., for the temporary placement of R.L. in their home, holding that Petitioners, R.L.'s foster parents, established that they were entitled to the writ.After the parental rights of R.L.'s parents were terminated R.L. was placed with Petitioners. The circuit court granted Respondents' motion for temporary placement of R.L., finding that his best interests would be served by achieving permanency through adoption by them. Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that the circuit court exceeded its legitimate powers and committed clear error as a matter of law by ordering R.L. to be placed with Respondents. View "State ex rel., D.B. v. Honorable Thomas A. Bedell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the family court denying Father's motion seeking to modify a parenting plan for his daughter, E.M., due to substantial changes in circumstances and awarding attorney fees to Mother, holding that the family court's finding of no substantial change in circumstances was clearly erroneous.When E.M. was two years old, Father and Mother signed an agreed parenting plan. Three years later, Mother filed a petition to modify the parenting plan, alleging that the circumstances had substantially changed due to his job change, Mother's joining the workforce and E.M.'s enrollment in kindergarten. The family court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the family court committed clear error when it found that there was no substantial change in circumstances. View "Jared M. v. Molly A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Petitioner's motion to transfer custody of A.A. to her upon finding that the transfer would not be in A.A.'s best interest, holding that there was no error.A.A. was temporarily removed from a hotel room after her father was arrested for unlawful possession of firearms. Petitioner, A.A.'s paternal grandmother, declined to take custody of the A.A. and so the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources placed A.A. with Respondents, foster parents. After the proceedings began, Petitioner intervened and filed a motion to transfer custody of the child to her. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court appropriately exercised jurisdiction in this matter; and (2) Petitioner's remaining assignments of error were without merit. View "In re A.A." on Justia Law