Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's dispositional order terminating Mother's parental rights to her three minor children, holding that the court erred in terminating Mother's parental rights in the absence of any evidence being presented by the Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) at the dispositional hearing.Upon evidence that Mother was abusing methamphetamines Mother's three children were removed from her care and placed with their respective biological fathers. After stipulating to abuse and/or neglect and embarking upon post-adjudicatory and dispositional improvement periods Mother twice relapsed. Despite the prosecutor's failure to present any evidence on DHHR's behalf at the dispositional hearing, the circuit court terminated Mother's parental rights. The Supreme Court held that the circuit court’s dispositional order must be vacated due to DHHR’s failure to introduce evidence in support of termination. View "In re K.S." on Justia Law

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