1 

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

Amanda H., 

Petitioner Below, Petitioner

vs.) No. 22-ICA-61 (Fam. Ct. Jackson Cnty. No. FC-18-2006-D-143) 

James S., 

Respondent Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Amanda H. (“Mother”)1 appeals the Family Court of Jackson County’s 

August 1, 2022, order denying her petition for modification of a parenting plan. 

Respondent James S. (“Father”) filed a timely response.2

 Mother filed a reply. 

This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to West Virginia Code § 51-

11-4 (2022). After considering the parties’ arguments, the record on appeal, and the 

applicable law, this Court finds the family court erred in failing to set forth findings of fact 

and conclusions of law sufficient to allow meaningful appellate review. This case satisfies 

the “limited circumstances” requirement of Rule 21(d) of the West Virginia Rules of 

Appellate Procedure, and a memorandum decision is appropriate to reverse the family 

court’s August 1, 2022, order, and remand the case to family court with instructions to draft 

a new order setting forth findings of fact and conclusions of law sufficient for meaningful 

appellate review. 

The parties were previously married and share two sons, one of whom is B.S., a 

minor.3 The parties divorced in 2006 and mother was awarded full custody of the parties’ 

sons, with father having visitation with the sons every other weekend and four hours every 

Wednesday. However, the parties agreed to a “different arrangement” that permitted father 

1 Consistent with our practice in cases with sensitive facts, we use initials where 

necessary to protect the identities of those involved in the case. See W.Va. R. App. Pro 

40(e)(1); Amanda C. v. Christopher P., No. 22-ICA-2, 2022 WL 17098574, ____ W. Va. 

____, ____ S.E. 2d ____ (W. Va. Ct. App. 2022). 

2

 Both mother and father are self-represented. 

 

3 The parties’ other son, L.S., has reached the age of majority and, thus, is not at 

issue in this appeal. 

FILED

February 2, 2023

EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF WEST VIRGINIA
2

to see his sons more often4 and their arrangement remained in place for more than fifteen 

years. 

On January 19, 2022, father filed, in the Family Court of Jackson County, a petition 

for modification requesting a change in the parties’ parenting plan. Father stated that B.S. 

has been living full time in his home following a December 16, 2021, domestic violence 

incident at mother’s home.

5 In the petition, father alleged that B.S. did not feel safe at

mother’s home. A hearing on respondent’s petition for modification was held before the 

family court on January 19, 2022. During the hearing, the court heard testimony from B.S. 

and mother. B.S. advised the court that he wished to primarily reside with father because 

he does not feel safe at mother’s home with his stepfather. 

By order entered on March 8, 2022, the family court granted respondent’s petition 

for modification and awarded father primary residential custody of B.S., with mother

having visitation every weekend but the third weekend of the month. The court directed 

that mother’s husband, A.H., not be present during visitation. Mother filed a motion for 

reconsideration of the family court’s ruling, which was denied in a March 15, 2022, order. 

In April of 2022, mother moved out of her marital home in Cross Lanes, West 

Virginia, and into an apartment in South Charleston, West Virginia, to physically separate 

from her husband and to be closer to B.S.’s school. On May 18, 2022, mother and her 

husband, A.H., were divorced. On August 1, 2022, mother filed a petition for modification 

of the parenting plan established in the March 8, 2022, order, and requested 50/50 custody. 

In her petition, under the section provided to identify the circumstances to justify the 

modification, mother stated that she “divorced [A.H.], no longer lives with” A.H., and has 

maintained her own residence since April of 2022. By order entered on August 2, 2022, 

the family court denied mother’s petition for modification. In the August 2, 2022, order,

the family court simply and summarily stated that “[a]fter review of the petition, the Court 

finds that the petition fails to state a significant change in circumstances that would warrant 

a modification under the West Virginia Code.” The family court did not provide any 

4 Per mother, the parties’ informal agreed parenting plan would change every two 

weeks. Week 1: Mother would have the children on Monday, Tuesday, Friday, Saturday, 

and Sunday and father would have the children Wednesday and Thursday. Week 2: Father 

would have the children on Monday, Tuesday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday and mother

would have the children Wednesday and Thursday.

5 The record reflects that on December 16, 2021, an “altercation” occurred between 

mother and her then husband, A.H., during which A.H. hit mother, and threatened and 

cursed B.S. 
3 

findings of fact or conclusions of law to support its decision, and instead offered only one 

sentence of less than forty words to explain its ruling.6

 

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia has remanded such wholly 

insufficient orders finding that 

to properly review an order of a family court, “[t]he order must 

be sufficient to indicate the factual and legal basis for the 

[family court]’s ultimate conclusion so as to facilitate a 

meaningful review of the issues presented.” Province v.

Province, 196 W.Va. 473, 483, 473 S.E.2d 894, 904 

(1996); See also Nestor v. Bruce Hardwood Flooring, L.P., 

206 W.Va. 453, 456, 525 S.E.2d 334, 337 (1999) (“[O]ur task 

as an appellate court is to determine whether the circuit court's 

reasons for its order are supported by the record.”). “Where the 

lower tribunals fail to meet this standard—i.e. making only 

general, conclusory or inexact findings—we must vacate the 

judgment and remand the case for further findings and 

development.” Province, 196 W.Va. at 483, 473 S.E.2d at 904. 

Collisi v. Collisi, 231 W. Va. 359, 363–64, 745 S.E.2d 250, 254–55 (2013). 

Here, the family court neglected to provide sufficient findings and conclusions in 

support of its ultimate decision to allow for meaningful appellate review. Accordingly, the 

family court's order is insufficient as a matter of law and cannot be upheld. 

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the family court’s August 1, 2022, order and 

remand the case to family court with instructions for the court to enter a new order 

containing findings of fact and conclusions of law sufficient to allow meaningful appellate 

6

 In Jared A. v. Molly A., 246 W. Va. 556, 874 S.E.2d 358 (2022), the Supreme

Court reasoned that West Virginia Code § 48-9-401(a) (2001) establishes three criteria for 

change in circumstances modifications to parenting plans. First, the facts relevant to the 

change in circumstances must not have been known or anticipated in the order that 

established the parenting plan. Jared A., 246 W. Va. at ___, 874 S.E.2d at 364. Second, the 

change in circumstances, whether “of the child or of one or both parents [,]” must be 

substantial. Id. Third, the modification must be “necessary to serve the best interests of the 

child.” Id. 

While West Virginia Code § 48-9-401(a) was amended in 2022, the criteria set for 

in West Virginia Code § 48-9-401(a) (2022) remains the same as the 2001 version cited by 

the Supreme Court in Jared A. 
4

review. The Clerk of this Court is hereby directed to issue the mandate contemporaneously 

herewith. 

Reversed and remanded with instructions. 

ISSUED: February 2, 2023

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Judge Daniel W. Greear

Judge Charles O. Lorensen

Judge Thomas E. Scarr