1

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

In re M.M., L.M., and A.M.

No. 19-0540 (Nicholas County 18-JA-67, 18-JA-68, and 18-JA-69)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Father V.M., by counsel James R. Milam II, appeals the Circuit Court of 

Nicholas County’s May 2, 2019, order terminating his parental and custodial rights to M.M., L.M., 

and A.M.

1 The West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (“DHHR”), by counsel

Brandolyn N. Felton-Ernest, filed a response in support of the circuit court’s order. The guardian 

ad litem, Julia R. Callaghan, filed a response on behalf of the children in support of the circuit 

court’s order and a supplemental appendix. Respondent Mother J.M., by counsel Harley E. 

Stollings, filed a response in support of the circuit court’s order and a supplemental appendix. On 

appeal, petitioner argues the circuit court erred in terminating his parental and custodial rights.

This Court has considered the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal 

arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided 

by oral argument. Upon consideration of the standard of review, the briefs, and the record 

presented, the Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these reasons, 

a memorandum decision affirming the circuit court’s order is appropriate under Rule 21 of the 

Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Following the filing of a child abuse and neglect petition in May of 2018, petitioner 

stipulated to allegations that he continually insulted and belittled his girlfriend’s child, K.W., about 

her weight to the extent that it caused the child emotional distress.2 The DHHR amended its 

petition in June of 2018 to include petitioner’s children, M.M., L.M., and A.M., as infant 

respondents. The circuit court held a second adjudicatory hearing on the amended petition, and 

petitioner stipulated again to emotionally abusing K.W. Petitioner began a noncustodial postadjudicatory improvement period, wherein he was required to remain drug and alcohol free, 

 

1Consistent with our long-standing practice in cases with sensitive facts, we use initials 

where necessary to protect the identities of those involved in this case. See In re K.H., 235 W. Va. 

254, 773 S.E.2d 20 (2015); Melinda H. v. William R. II, 230 W. Va. 731, 742 S.E.2d 419 (2013); 

State v. Brandon B., 218 W. Va. 324, 624 S.E.2d 761 (2005); State v. Edward Charles L., 183 W.

Va. 641, 398 S.E.2d 123 (1990).

2The initial petition named K.W. and M.W., the children of petitioner’s girlfriend, as infant 

respondents. However, those children are not at issue in this appeal. 

FILED

February 7, 2020

EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

OF WEST VIRGINIA
2

participate in and complete in-home services, undergo a psychological evaluation, and follow the 

recommendations of that evaluation, including, but not limited to, anger management classes if 

required.

The circuit court held the final dispositional hearing in April of 2019 and took judicial 

notice of petitioner’s misdemeanor assault conviction in November of 2018 where petitioner pled 

guilty to allegations that he threw a vinyl door at K.W. and M.M. The evidence showed that 

petitioner’s children feared him. Video evidence was introduced of petitioner threatening his 

children, specifically stating, “[r]oll ‘em eyes one more time and they are gonna get knocked out” 

to M.W. Petitioner testified that he did not see anything wrong with what was depicted in the video 

and did not believe he needed to improve his parenting. Petitioner further claimed that he only 

called K.W. “fat” because she asked him to do so. Additional video evidence was introduced that 

showed petitioner viewing pornography in the presence of the children. Further, the circuit court 

found that petitioner had failed to pay child support since October of 2016 without good cause and 

negligently permitted K.W. and M.M. to operate his four-wheeler without proper safety 

precautions, which resulted in a broken arm for one girl and a fractured vertebrae for the other. 

Ultimately, the circuit court found that, despite petitioner’s admission to the allegation of abuse, 

he refused to accept any responsibility for the same and refused to change his behavior. Therefore, 

the circuit court found that there was no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse and 

neglect could be substantially corrected in the near future and that it was necessary for the 

children’s welfare to terminate petitioner’s parental and custodial rights. The circuit court’s 

decision was memorialized by its May 2, 2019, order. Petitioner now appeals that order.3

The Court has previously held

“Although conclusions of law reached by a circuit court are subject to de 

novo review, when an action, such as an abuse and neglect case, is tried upon the 

facts without a jury, the circuit court shall make a determination based upon the 

evidence and shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether such 

child is abused or neglected. These findings shall not be set aside by a reviewing 

court unless clearly erroneous. A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there 

is evidence to support the finding, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left 

with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. However, 

a reviewing court may not overturn a finding simply because it would have decided 

the case differently, and it must affirm a finding if the circuit court’s account of the 

evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety.” Syl. Pt. 1, In 

Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996). 

Syl. Pt. 1, In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011). Upon review, this Court finds no 

error in the proceedings below.

 

3The children’s mother, respondent herein, was determined to be a nonabusing parent, and 

the children have obtained permanency in her custody.
3

On appeal, petitioner argues that the circuit court erred in terminating his parental and 

custodial rights. However, in his brief on appeal, petitioner fails to provide the applicable standard 

of review, any citations to the record, or any legal authority in support of his argument.4

Petitioner’s failure to provide any support for his argument is in violation of Rule 10(c)(7) of the 

West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure, as follows:

The brief must contain an argument exhibiting clearly the points of fact and law 

presented, the standard of review applicable, and citing the authorities relied on, 

under headings that correspond with the assignments of error. The argument must 

contain appropriate and specific citations to the record on appeal, including 

citations that pinpoint when and how the issues in the assignments of error were 

presented to the lower tribunal. The Court may disregard errors that are not 

adequately supported by specific references to the record on appeal.

Additionally, in an Administrative Order entered December 10, 2012, Re: Filings That Do Not 

Comply With the Rules of Appellate Procedure, this Court specifically noted that “[b]riefs that lack 

citation of authority [or] fail to structure an argument applying applicable law” are not in 

compliance with this Court’s rules. Further, “[b]riefs with arguments that do not contain a citation 

to legal authority to support the argument presented and do not ‘contain appropriate and specific 

citations to the record on appeal . . .’ as required by rule 10(c)(7)” are not in compliance with this 

Court’s rules. Id. “A skeletal ‘argument,’ really nothing more than an assertion, does not preserve 

a claim . . . . Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.” State v. Kaufman, 227 

W. Va. 537, 555 n.39, 711 S.E.2d 607, 625 n.39 (2011) (quoting U.S. v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 

956 (7th Cir. 1991)). Because petitioner’s brief with regard to his lone assignment of error is 

inadequate and fails to comply with Rule 10(c)(7), we decline to address his argument on appeal.

For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the decision of the circuit court, and its May

2, 2019, order is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

ISSUED: February 7, 2020

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Justice Tim Armstead 

Justice Margaret L. Workman

Justice Elizabeth D. Walker

Justice Evan H. Jenkins

Justice John A. Hutchison

 

4Petitioner only provides one reference to the West Virginia Code: “The [c]ourt erred in 

concluding that there was no alternative to termination as set forth in West Virginia Code § 49-4-

604.” Yet, this brief mention of West Virginia Code § 49-4-604 is not accompanied with any legal 

analysis.