Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

After Stepfather was arrested and admitted to sexual abuse of one of Mother's children, the Department removed Mother's two children from the home and filed an abuse and neglect petition against Mother. After an adjudicatory hearing, the circuit court found that the children were abused. The court also denied Mother's motion for a post-adjudicatory improvement period. Later, the circuit court entered a dispositional order terminating Mother's parental rights to the two children. Mother appealed, asserting that her due process rights were violated, that no imminent danger existed at the time her children were taken into custody, that she should have been granted an improvement period, and that the lower court failed to impose the least restrictive alternative disposition so as to protect the best interests of her children. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the termination of Mother's parental rights, holding that the circuit court did not err in its judgment; but (2) remanded for a determination of whether the permanent placement of the children with their biological father was appropriate. View "In re Timber M." on Justia Law

The circuit court adjudicated Mother and Father abusive and neglectful and terminated their parental rights to three children. Mother and Father appealed, contending, among other things, that the circuit court erred in finding that an altercation involving Father and their grandfather, which was witnessed by the children, constituted abuse and/or neglect. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the Department of Health and Human Resources failed to properly amend the abuse and neglect petition prior to adjudication, and the circuit court failed to permit proper amendment post-adjudication, such to encompass all of the allegations made evident during the course of the proceeding; and (2) the circuit court's analysis and findings in support of the disposition were deficient. Remanded. View "In re Lilith H." on Justia Law

The Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) filed an abuse and neglect petition against Mother and Father, the biological parents of two girls. After an adjudicatory hearing establishing the children were abused and neglected, Father voluntarily relinquished his parental rights. Mother was granted a post-adjudicatory improvement period. The circuit court later granted Mother a one-year rehabilitation period, finding that Mother benefitted from the services provided. DHHR subsequently filed a motion to terminate Mother's parental rights. After a dispositional hearing, the circuit court terminated Mother's parental rights, finding, among other things, that Mother participated in rehabilitative services but failed to benefit from them in ways that would protect the children. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that neglect and parental unfitness were not established by clear, cogent, and convincing grounds. Remanded for development of a reunification plan. View "In re Jessica M." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were six custodial parents of children who were owed child support from the noncustodial parent suing on behalf of their respective children. Defendants included the Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR), the Support Enforcement Commission (SEC), and the Bureau for Child Support Enforcement (BCSE). In each case, child support orders were entered requiring the noncustodial parents to pay a certain amount of child support each month, but the orders were not preserved, and significant portions of the child support payments in arrears were barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants failed to reduce their respective support arrearages to judgment and/or to renew such judgments, thus causing their claims to become time-barred. The circuit court concluded that further factual development was necessary to determine whether Plaintiffs had a private cause of action under the statutes governing child support enforcement. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for entry of an order granting Defendants' motions to dismiss, holding that Plaintiffs did not have a private cause of action under the statutes governing collection of child support by the BCSE. View "Fucillo v. Kerner" on Justia Law

When Mother and Father divorced in Colorado, Mother was awarded primary custody of the parties' two minor children subject to visitation by Father, who subsequently moved to Virginia. Mother later moved with the children to West Virginia so the children could be closer to Father. Father then filed a motion for modification. The lower courts modified the parties' prior custodial arrangement and awarded primary custody to Father. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the lower courts erred in finding Mother's move to West Virginia was a substantial change in circumstances; (2) the lower courts erred in modifying custody based, in large part, on the fact that Father's new wife was a stay-at-home mom who could provide childcare; and (3) the best interests of the children were served by maintaining primary custodial responsibility with Mother. View "Andrea H. v. Jason R.C." on Justia Law

Mother had two infant twin boys, Joseph and Walter. Joseph died after ingesting a lethal dose of Suboxone. Neither the investigations by law enforcement nor Mother's inquiries into Joseph's death were able to determine how Joseph ingested the drug or where it originated. The West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) later filed an imminent danger petition alleging that Walter was a neglected and/or abused child based on the death of Joseph. After a hearing, the circuit court found (1) Mother neglected Walter and Joseph by failing to provide them with appropriate supervision the night of Joseph's death; and (2) Walter was a neglected child, and it was contrary to his welfare to reside with Mother in her home. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court clearly erred in concluding that Walter was a neglected child. View "In re Walter G." on Justia Law

Mother sought to change the name of Daughter. Mother filed a name change petition to request a hyphenated surname for Daughter. Father opposed the name change request, arguing that he was likely to be injured by the change of Daughter's name and that the alteration of Daughter's name would not significantly advance her best interests. The trial court allowed the requested hyphenated name change. Father appealed, arguing that the trial court failed properly to apply the standard governing a name change request. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that clear and convincing evidence did not support the finding that the name change would significantly advance the best interests of Daughter. View "In re Name Change of Jenna A.J." on Justia Law

After Petitioner's daughter, A.P., was born, Petitioner and A.P. lived with Petitioner's mother, Respondent. Two and one-half months later, Petitioner and A.P. moved out of Respondent's home. The relationship between Petitioner and Respondent subsequently deteriorated, and Petitioner prohibited further visitation between A.P. and Respondent. Respondent subsequently filed a petition for grandparent visitation. The family court awarded grandparent visitation to Respondent, and the circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the lower tribunals erred in finding that Respondent rebutted the statutory presumption against grandparent visitation by clear and convincing evidence that an award of grandparent visitation was in the best interest of A.P. View "In re Grandparent Visitation of A.P." on Justia Law

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

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