1

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

SIRAAJ M.,

Respondent Below, Petitioner

v.) No. 23-ICA-511 (Fam. Ct. Jefferson Cnty. No. FC-19-2011-D-509) 

STEPHANIE M.,

Petitioner Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Siraaj M.1(“Father”) appeals the Family Court of Jefferson County’s 

October 17, 2023, final custody modification order which he alleges failed to address 

multiple issues that he raised during the final hearing. Respondent Stephanie M. 

(“Mother”) filed a response in support of the family court’s decision.2 Father 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 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. 

This appeal involves the parties’ two minor children, aged sixteen and fourteen 

respectively. Events leading to this appeal began on or about August 16, 2022, when 

Mother filed a petition for modification of child support due to an increase in Father’s 

income. The modification hearing was held on November 3, 2022, and the family court 

used the basic shared parenting child support formula to calculate Father’s child support 

obligation.3 By order entered on November 7, 2022, Father’s child support was increased 

to $1,015.00 per month. Father appealed the November 7, 2022, order to this Court, 

wherein he argued that the extended shared parenting child support formula should have 

1 To protect the confidentiality of the juveniles 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 Both parties are self-represented. 

3 See West Virginia Code § 48-13-301 (2023) for the chart showing basic shared 

parenting child support guidelines. 

FILED

July 1, 2024

ASHLEY N. DEEM, CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF WEST VIRGINIA
2

been used instead of the basic shared formula.4 On May 1, 2023, this Court entered a 

Memorandum Decision remanding the matter to the family court with instructions to use 

the child support formula for extended shared parenting to recalculate Father’s child 

support. See Siraaj M. v. Stephanie M., No. 22-ICA-288, 2023 WL 3172034, at *1 (W. Va. 

Ct. App. May 1, 2023) (memorandum decision). A remand hearing was held on June 12, 

2023. During that hearing, the family court used the correct formula and calculated Father’s 

new child support obligation to be $662 per month. 

Mother filed a petition for contempt based on Father’s failure to pay child support. 

By order entered on April 12, 2023, the family court dismissed the petition for contempt 

but ordered Father to become current on his child support obligation. On May 22, 2023, 

Father filed a petition for modification of child support. On June 2, 2023, Mother filed a 

petition for the modification of custody. On June 13, 2023, Father filed a motion to have 

the family court judge recused. The motion for recusal was denied by administrative order 

entered by the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia on June 22, 2023. 

In June and July of 2023, Father filed the following: (1) an objection to the children’s 

testimony; (2) objections to the child support remand order; (3) a writ of prohibition; (4) 

an objection to child support wage withholding; (5) a request for the production of 

documents under a Subpoena Duces Tecum; and (6) a motion to review. The writ of 

prohibition was dismissed by the circuit court of Jefferson County on July 18, 2023. 

Thereafter, Father filed with the family court: parenting plan pleadings, a motion in limine, 

a petition for contempt, and a motion to reconsider. 

The final modification hearing was held on September 28, 2023. At that hearing, the 

family court denied Father’s motion in limine, stating that “to limit testimony would be [a] 

denial of [Mother’s] rights to petition for [a custody] modification.” Father’s petition for 

contempt was dismissed as moot because the family court already heard the arguments 

alleged in the contempt petition. Father’s motion for reconsideration was dismissed as moot 

because the child support issue contained therein had already been addressed. The family 

court dismissed the remainder of Father’s motions and proceeded to hear Father’s petition 

for the modification of child support and Mother’s petition for the modification of custody. 

At the hearing on September 28, 2023, Father elicited testimony from a human 

resources representative from Mother’s place of employment who presented pay stubs and 

testimony showing that Mother earned $14.10 per hour and can earn an extra dollar per 

hour if she works overtime. She further testified that Mother had worked approximately 

forty to forty-five hours of overtime from January of 2023 to September of 2023. Mother 

then testified that Father had not exercised any overnights since May of 2022 and had not 

4 See West Virginia Code § 48-13-501 (2023), which explains the method used for 

calculating child support for extended shared parenting cases where each parent has the 

child for more than one hundred twenty-seven days per year. 
3

regularly visited with the children since November of 2022. Mother also testified that 

Father called the children names and shamed them such that they no longer desired to have 

visits with him. Father testified that he has been in a facility to receive treatment for 

alcoholism since August of 2022, that he had been sober for thirteen months, and that he 

could not afford to move out of the residential facility due to his child support being too 

high.

The final modification order was entered on October 17, 2023. In that order, the 

family court calculated child support to be $575 under the extended shared formula and 

$997 under the basic shared formula. Due to Father’s alcohol treatment and living situation, 

the family court decided to deviate from the basic shared formula and split the difference 

between the two calculations, which resulted in Father being ordered to pay $775 per month 

in child support. The family court further held that Mother would have the children at all 

times unless the parties agreed for Father to visit, and that the parties would have joint 

decision-making. It is from the October 17, 2023, order that Father now appeals. 

When reviewing the order of a family court, we apply the following standard of 

review: 

When a final order of a family court is appealed to the Intermediate Court of 

Appeals of West Virginia, the Intermediate Court of Appeals shall review 

the findings of fact made by the family court for clear error, and the family

court’s application of law to the facts for an abuse of discretion. The 

Intermediate Court of Appeals shall review questions of law de novo.

Syl. Pt. 2, Christopher P. v. Amanda C., No. 22-918, 2024 WL 2966177, __ W. Va. __, __

S.E.2d __ (2024); accord W. Va. Code § 51-2A-14(c) (2005) (specifying standards for 

appellate court review of family court orders). 

Father raises eight assignments of error on appeal that present interrelated issues; 

accordingly, we consolidate his arguments as appropriate.5

Father asserts that the family court’s October 17, 2023, order did not properly weigh 

the evidence that was presented during the final hearing. This argument lacks merit. The 

clear error standard of review for a lower court’s factual findings is “highly deferential.” 

Argus Energy, LLC v. Marenko, 248 W. Va. 98, 105, 887 S.E.2d 223, 230 (2023). 

Demonstrating clear error is no mean feat. 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 

5 See Bowden v. Monroe Cnty. Comm’n, 232 W. Va. 47, 51, 750 S.E.2d 263, 267 

(2013) (per curiam) (consolidating assignments of error).
4

mistake has been committed. A party does not meet this burden by suggesting 

that the findings are ‘maybe’ or ‘probably wrong.’ Rather, the challenged 

factual finding must strike us wrong with the force of a five-week-old, 

unrefrigerated dead fish. 

Marenko, 248 W. Va. at 105, 887 S.E.2d at 230 (citations omitted). Here, Father expresses 

his dissatisfaction and disagreement with the family court’s ruling, but he ultimately fails 

to demonstrate how the family court’s factual findings constitute clear error.6 While we 

allow a degree of leeway to pro se litigants arguing before us,

7

appeals must still present 

cognizable legal reasons to justify setting aside a court’s ruling on appeal. As such, we find 

no basis in law to warrant relief on these issues.8 

In his third assignment of error, Father avers that the family court ignored his 

pleadings, responses, testimony, and filings on the record. We disagree. A review of the 

transcript shows the family court heard all arguments presented by Father. With regard to 

Father’s multiple pleadings, West Virginia Code § 51-2A-7(a)(1) (2013) gives family 

courts the power to “[m]anage the business before them.” Additionally, Father failed to 

state on appeal exactly how he suffered harm. See William M. v. W. Va. Bureau of Child 

Support Enf’t, No. 20-0620, 2021 WL 3833867, at *3 (W. Va. Aug. 27, 2021) 

(memorandum decision) (finding alleged error by family court harmless where petitioners 

failed to show that they suffered prejudice or had their substantial rights adversely affected 

by alleged error).

As his fourth assignment of error, Father contends that the family court deviated 

from this Court’s mandate and memorandum decision in its June 12, 2023, hearing. We 

decline to address this assignment of error because the timeframe for appeal long since 

passed, as the final order from the remand hearing was entered on June 22, 2023, and the 

notice of appeal in this proceeding was filed on November 16, 2023.

Fifth, Father asserts that the family court judge exhibited profound misconduct and 

was a hindrance to his case. We decline to rule on this assignment of error, as this Court 

lacks jurisdiction to hear allegations regarding alleged judicial misconduct. Rule 2 of the 

West Virginia Rules of Judicial Disciplinary Procedure directs parties to file complaints 

6 Father argues the family court overlooked his allegations of Mother’s: (1) acts of 

parental alienation; (2) parental unfitness; and (3) abuse of the judicial system. 

7 See Cottrill v. Cottrill, 219 W. Va. 51, 55, 631 S.E.2d 609, 613 (2006) (requiring 

courts to provide “reasonable accommodations” to pro se litigants).

8 The above section consolidates Father’s first, second, and eighth assignments of 

error. 
5

against judges with the West Virginia Office of Disciplinary Counsel for violations of the 

Code of Judicial Conduct. 

Sixth, Father argues that the family court was very “loose” with his filings for 

discovery and did not compel his witness or Mother to comply with the law or rules of 

discovery. We disagree. A review of the transcript shows that the family court permitted 

Father to examine a human resources representative from Mother’s workplace to develop 

evidence regarding Mother’s employment salary. Over the course of the hearing, the 

witness provided detailed information about Mother’s hourly wage and overtime hours 

worked in 2023. Therefore, we conclude that the family court’s evidentiary rulings do not 

constitute an abuse of discretion. 

Seventh, Father asserts that he has over-paid child support in the amount of 

$1,604.08 due to the family court’s error in the November 3, 2022, hearing and the family 

court has not directed the Bureau for Child Support Enforcement to reimburse him. We 

disagree. The order on remand was entered on June 22, 2023, and the timeframe to appeal

that issue has passed. Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the family court has committed 

error. 

For the reasons above, we affirm the family court’s October 17, 2023, order. 

Affirmed.

ISSUED: July 1, 2024

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Judge Thomas E. Scarr

Judge Charles O. Lorensen

Judge Daniel W. Greear