STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
 

Christy M., FILED 

Petitioner Below, Petitioner November 21, 2016 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

vs) No. 15-1159 (Harrison County 08-D-276-4) SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Hunter M.,
 

Respondent Below, Respondent
 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Christy M., by counsel Christopher T. Pritt, appeals the Circuit Court of 

Harrison County’s October 27, 2015, order affirming the family court’s order modifying the 

permanent parenting plan and child support, in addition to other financial issues.1 Pro se 

respondent Hunter M. filed a response in support of the circuit court’s order. On appeal, 

petitioner alleges that the family court erred in failing to attribute income to respondent based on 

his previous three years of employment, backdating child support to July 1, 2012, and attributing 

petitioner income totaling $42,000. 

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. 

The parties were divorced by final decree entered in January of 2009. Thereafter, in June 

of 2012, petitioner filed a notice of relocation indicating that she intended to move to Charleston, 

West Virginia. In June of 2012, respondent filed an objection to the proposed parenting plan 

incidental to the relocation and requested that he continue to be designated the primary 

custodian. Respondent further requested that petitioner be required to pay child support 

consistent with the revised income shares formula. Thereafter, the parties each filed additional 

pleadings regarding custody and child support. 

By order entered in August of 2012, the family court ordered the parties to participate in 

1

Consistent 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). 

1


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mediation. Thereafter, respondent filed an amended objection to petitioner’s proposed 

amendment to the proposed parenting plan in addition to a counterclaim seeking, among other 

relief, an order granting him the previously requested financial relief. In September of 2012, the 

family court held a post-mediation status hearing and set the matter for a final hearing in January 

of 2013. Following the January of 2013 hearing, the family court entered an interim final hearing 

and injunctive order before setting the matter for another final hearing in May of 2013. The 

parties were then directed to file briefs pertaining to the financial matters raised in the pleadings. 

In August of 2013, the family court entered an opinion letter setting forth findings of fact 

based upon the evidence. The family court determined that respondent would be designated as 

the primary residential parent during the school year while petitioner would exercise parenting 

time during the summer months, among other shared dates. The family court further ordered the 

parties to provide updated financial information so that it could rule on child support. Thereafter, 

the family court held several telephone conferences with the parties to address the outstanding 

financial issues. 

In June of 2015, the circuit court entered a final order that modified the permanent 

parenting plan and child support and addressed other financial issues. In ruling on the issue of 

child support, the family court made several findings relevant to this appeal, including the 

following: (1) that respondent’s tax year 2011 income should not be considered as usual income 

or be averaged since it was a “significant outlier” because it constituted seven-to-eight times his 

typical income; (2) that child support should be backdated to July 1, 2012; and (3) that 

petitioner’s attributed income was $42,000 per year. 

In July of 2015, petitioner appealed the family court’s order to the circuit court. After 

holding a hearing, the circuit court affirmed that order by order entered in October of 2015. It is 

from this order that petitioner appeals. 

We have previously established the following standard of review: 

In reviewing a final order entered by a circuit court judge upon a review 

of, or upon a refusal to review, 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., Carr v. Hancock, 216 W.Va. 474, 607 S.E.2d 803 (2004). On appeal, petitioner argues that 

the family court erred in failing to attribute income to respondent based on his previous three 

years of employment, backdating child support to July 1, 2012, and attributing petitioner income 

totaling $42,000. We do not agree. 

Upon our review and consideration of the circuit court’s order, the parties’ arguments, 

and the record submitted on appeal, we find no error or abuse of discretion by the circuit court. 

Our review of the record supports the circuit court’s decision to deny petitioner relief based on 

these alleged errors, which were also argued below. Indeed, the circuit court’s order includes 

well-reasoned findings and conclusions as to the assignments of error raised on appeal. Given 

2


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

our conclusion that the circuit court’s order and the record before us reflect no clear error or 

abuse of discretion, we hereby adopt and incorporate the circuit court’s findings and conclusions 

as they relate to petitioner’s assignments of error raised herein and direct the Clerk to attach a 

copy of the circuit court’s October 27, 2015, “Order Affirming Family Court’s ‘Modified 

Permanent Parenting Order’ And ‘Order Modifying Child Support And Addressing Other 

Financial Issues’” to this memorandum decision. 

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. 

Affirmed. 

ISSUED: November 21, 2016 

CONCURRED IN BY: 

Chief Justice Menis E. Ketchum 

Justice Robin Jean Davis 

Justice Brent D. Benjamin 

Justice Margaret L. Workman 

Justice Allen H. Loughry II 

3