1

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

CORINNE Z.,

Respondent Below, Petitioner

v.) No. 23-ICA-329 (Fam. Ct. Brooke Cnty. No. FC-05-2019-D-27) 

TYLER M.,

Petitioner Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Corinne Z.1(“Mother”) appeals the Family Court of Brooke County’s 

June 13, 2023, order denying her petition for the modification of custody. The family court 

held that Mother failed to comply with its previous orders and that no substantial change 

in circumstances had occurred. Respondent Tyler M. (“Father”) filed a response in support 

of the family court’s decision.2 Mother filed a timely 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 no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For 

these reasons, a memorandum decision affirming the family court’s order is appropriate 

under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

The parties, who were never married, are the parents of one child, E.J.M. The events 

leading to this appeal began on November 9, 2018, when Father filed a petition for a 

Domestic Violence Protective Order (“DVPO”) against Mother. The family court granted 

the petition and as a result, Mother was granted supervised visitation with E.J.M three days 

each week for four hours per visit. The family court also ordered both parties to undergo a 

drug and alcohol evaluation and to submit to random drug screenings. 

1 To protect the confidentiality of the juvenile involved in this case, we refer to the 

parties’ last name by the first initial. See, e.g., W. Va. R. App. P. 40(e); State v. Edward 

Charles L., 183 W. Va. 641, 645 n.1, 398 S.E.2d 123, 127 n.1 (1990).

2 Corinne Z. is self-represented. Tyler M. is represented by Elgine Heceta McArdle, 

Esq. 

FILED

February 27, 2024

C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF WEST VIRGINIA
2

On February 26, 2019, Father filed a petition for the allocation of custodial 

responsibility. The parties reached an agreement prior to the hearing, which was scheduled 

for August 26, 2019. On September 13, 2019, the family court entered its Final Order 

Adopting Joint Parenting Agreement which awarded Father primary custody. The 

agreement also directed that Mother would continue to have supervised visitation through 

a local visitation center, would continue to submit to random drug screens, could call the 

child once daily, and was not permitted to have visits with the child further than fifty miles 

away. 

 Thereafter, Mother canceled four visits with less than twenty-four hours’ notice to 

the visitation center between December 31, 2019, and January 28, 2020, which resulted in

the visitation center terminating her access to visits. Also, the consistency of Mother’s daily 

phone calls steadily decreased each year between 2020 and 2022. 

Mother filed a petition for modification on September 29, 2022, requesting equal 

custody. Mother increased the frequency of her phone calls just prior to filing her petition 

and maintained that frequency for a brief period of time after her petition was filed. On 

December 29, 2022, the parties attended court-ordered mediation but failed to reach an 

agreement. Thereafter, a final modification hearing was scheduled for March 14, 2023. At 

that hearing, Mother testified that: (1) she had moved over 250 miles away, to Denver, 

Pennsylvania; (2) she was unemployed and had not held a full-time job for more than two 

months at a time; (3) she was “trying to find herself”; (4) she was hospitalized for anorexia 

for two weeks; and (5) she stopped complying with the family court’s order for random 

drug testing. 

The family court entered its order on June 13, 2023, denying Mother’s request to 

modify the parenting plan. The family court found that Mother had failed to comply with 

its prior orders of supervised visitation and random drug screens and had failed to establish 

that a substantial change in circumstances had occurred. Additionally, the family court 

found that “the limiting factors described in West Virginia Code § 48-9-209 [were] 

abundantly present,” continue to persist, and their existence rebuts the presumption of 

equal shared parenting in this case.3 Accordingly, the family court concluded that a change 

in the parenting plan would not be in the child’s best interest. It is from the June 13, 2023,

order that Mother now appeals. 

For these matters, we use the following standard of review. 

3 West Virginia Code § 48-9-209 (2022) provides a list of non-exclusive factors to 

be weighed by the family court when entering an order approving or implementing a 

temporary or permanent parenting plan. 
3

“In reviewing . . . a final order of a family court judge, we review the findings 

of fact made by the family court judge under the clearly erroneous standard, 

and the application of law to the facts under an abuse of discretion standard. 

We review questions of law de novo.” Syl. Pt., [in part,] Carr v. Hancock, 

216 W. Va. 474, 607 S.E.2d 803 (2004).

Amanda C. v. Christopher P., 248 W. Va. 130, 133, 887 S.E.2d 255, 258 (Ct. App. 2022); 

accord W. Va. Code § 51-2A-14(c) (2005) (specifying standards for appellate court review 

of family court order). 

On appeal, Mother raises two assignments of error. First, she asserts that the family 

court erred when it failed to modify the parenting plan. In support of her argument, Mother 

states that the parties’ parenting plan was outdated, only meant to be used temporarily, and 

that her circumstances have now changed. We disagree. West Virginia Code § 48-9-401(a)

(2022) states, 

a court shall modify a parenting plan order if it finds, on the basis of facts 

that were not known or have arisen since the entry of a prior order and were 

not anticipated in the prior order, that a substantial change has occurred in 

the circumstances of the child or of one or both parents and a modification is 

necessary to serve the best interests of the child.

Here, the record reflects that Mother is presently unemployed and has not 

consistently held a full-time job, that she stopped complying with the family court’s order

for random drug testing, and that she testified during the family court hearing that she was 

“trying to find herself.” Additionally, Mother has relocated more than 250 miles away from 

E.J.M., making any type of visitation difficult. As such, we find no error in the family 

court’s determination that Mother failed to prove that a substantial change in circumstances 

has occurred. 

As her final assignment of error, Mother contends that the family court failed to 

consider Father’s history of faults which contributed to their parenting situation. Again, we 

disagree. Here, Mother was granted supervised visitation in September of 2019, when the 

family court adopted the parties’ joint parenting plan. Pursuant to their agreement, Mother 

was to continue to submit to random drug testing and was permitted to call E.J.M. once 

daily. Mother cancelled four of her supervised visits and only called E.J.M. four times in 

2022. Mother’s second assignment of error focuses entirely on Father’s alleged behavior 

but fails to address her own failure to follow the family court’s directives. Even if the 

family court failed to discuss Father’s alleged behavior, it is Mother’s burden to establish 

the required substantial change of circumstances. Therefore, we find that Mother has failed 

to establish error or abuse of discretion by the family court. 

Accordingly, we affirm the family court’s June 13, 2023, order. 
4

Affirmed.

ISSUED: February 27, 2024

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Judge Thomas E. Scarr

Judge Charles O. Lorensen

Judge Daniel W. Greear