1

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

JAMES W.,

Respondent Below, Petitioner

vs.) No. 23-ICA-331 (Fam. Ct. Mason Cnty. No. 15-D-171)

CIARA R.,

Petitioner Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner James W.1appeals the Family Court of Mason County’s “Final Order on 

Respondent’s Petition for Contempt” entered on July 13, 2023. In the order, the family 

court denied James W.’s Petition for Contempt against Respondent Ciara R. Ciara R. 

timely filed a response asking this court to dismiss James W.’s appeal.

2

James W. did not 

file 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. 

James W. and Ciara R. are the parents of two children born during their marriage. 

The parties were divorced by Final Order entered by the Family Court of Mason County 

on April 18, 2016. On February 8, 2023, the family court heard Ciara R.’s Petition for 

Modification, her Petition for Contempt, as well as James W.’s seven Petitions for 

Contempt filed against Ciara R. It is undisputed that at the hearing, the family court judge 

ordered the parties to communicate through an electronic application (“AppClose”). Ciara 

R. was ordered to use AppClose to keep James W. informed about the children’s grade 

reports, dates of sporting events, and medical appointments, and James W. was ordered not 

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 Petitioner and Respondent are both self-represented.

FILED

February 8, 2024

C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF WEST VIRGINIA
2

to appear at the medical appointments. The family court judge issued a written Status Order 

on March 30, 2023, in which these requirements were documented.3

On March 31, 2023, James W. filed another Petition for Contempt, asserting that 

Ciara R. had “not communicated anything” to him about their sons; specifically, James W. 

contended that Ciara R. had not placed their sons’ sporting events on AppClose and thus, 

she had not complied with the court’s order. This petition was heard on June 28, 2023, by 

the same family court judge who heard the prior petitions on February 8, 2023. At the June 

2023 hearing, the family court judge only permitted James W. to pursue violations that he 

alleged occurred between February 8, 2023 (the date of the previous hearing) and March 

31, 2023 (when he filed the petition at issue here). James W. presented printouts from 

AppClose purporting to show that Ciara R. had only created a single “event” through the 

calendar function on AppClose. However, Ciara R. presented printouts from AppClose 

purporting to show that she had created multiple events on the calendar. In response, James 

W. argued that Ciara R. had failed to complete the necessary “share” function on the 

application and thus, he was unable to see the content of the events that she created. Ciara 

R. indicated that she did share the events. 

By order dated July 13, 2023, the family court judge ruled that based on the 

testimony and exhibits presented, it appeared that the parties were having difficulty with 

the functions of AppClose. Further, the judge advised that she was aware that one parent 

could delete a calendar event created by the other parent. Finding insufficient evidence to 

conclude that Ciara R. “willfully and contumaciously violated the Order of the Court,” the 

Petition for Contempt was denied. The judge also ordered the parties to use the “chat” 

function of AppClose instead of the calendaring function, because the application saves all

chat conversations and prevents the deletion of the messages by either party. It is from this 

order that James W. appeals.

Our standard of review is as follows:

“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).

3 The Status Order dated March 30, 2023, is not in the record here. Thus, it is unclear 

how the court below ruled on the petitions for contempt filed by both parties. However, the 

family court judge referenced other portions of the Status Order in her order dated July 13, 

2023. The rulings on the prior contempt petitions are not at issue here and are not relevant 

to the present issue.
3

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

18, 2022); accord W. Va. Code § 51-2A-14(c) (2005) (specifying standards for appellate 

court review of family court order); See Syl. Pt. 1, Carter v. Carter, 196 W. Va. 239, 470 

S.E.2d 193 (1996) (holding that an abuse of discretion standard applies to contempt 

rulings). 

On appeal, James W. contends that the family court judge’s rulings were not 

impartial or objective, but instead that she was prejudiced in favor of Ciara R. Also, James 

W. asserts that at the hearing on June 28, 2023, he submitted evidence proving that Ciara 

R. failed to comply with the prior court order directing her to post events (such as sporting 

events or doctors’ appointments) on AppClose, but that the family court judge, showing 

partiality and bias, ruled in favor of Ciara R. According to James W., the judge incorrectly

found that posts to AppClose could be deleted; James W. contends that the application 

would have shown such deletion had it taken place and notes that he contacted support 

personnel for AppClose and found that there was no problem or issue with the application. 

Thus, James W. argues that the judge wrongly blamed AppClose for Ciara R.’s failure to 

make postings. Finally, James W. alleges that the judge threatened that his child support 

could be raised if he continued to file petitions for contempt against Ciara R. Citing Rules 

2.2 and 2.3 of the West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct, James W. asserts that the judge 

was biased and prejudiced in favor of Ciara R. when she denied his Petition for Contempt, 

as he could show that the judge did not tell the truth in court, kept his witnesses from 

testifying on his behalf, and did not allow him to submit evidence.

We disagree with James W. that the family court judge showed prejudice or bias in 

her rulings or conduct of the hearing on June 28, 2023.

4 Further, we find that the findings 

of fact made by the family court judge were not clearly erroneous, and the family court 

judge did not abuse her discretion when she applied the law to the facts presented in the 

case. Instead, upon review of the recording of the family court hearing held on June 28, 

2023, we note that the family court judge properly restricted the dates between which James 

W. was allowed to assert Ciara R.’s noncompliance. Further we note that James W. testified

that he had no witnesses to call. Thus, the family court judge did not prevent him from 

calling witnesses, he simply did not call any. At the hearing, both James W. and Ciara R. 

presented evidence in the form of printed documents from AppClose. The family court 

judge asked James W. if he had contacted AppClose’s customer support about the problems

he was having with AppClose and he said he had not. The evidence presented by both 

parties was accepted, reviewed by the judge at the hearing, and discussed in the order dated 

July 13, 2023. The family court judge noted in her order that the exhibits and the testimony 

of the parties were contradictory and concluded that the parties were having difficulty with 

4 This Court does not have authority to evaluate or make any finding regarding 

James W.’s allegation that the family court judge violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. 

The Judicial Investigation Commission has such authority. Therefore, we decline to rule 

on this allegation.
4

the functions of the AppClose application. Thus, the family court judge found that the 

testimony and evidence were not sufficient to find and conclude that Ciara R. willfully and 

contumaciously violated the court’s prior order. In sum, we find that the arguments 

advanced by James W., that are properly before this Court, are unsupported by the record. 

We find no biased or prejudicial behavior by the family court judge and her findings of fact 

were not clearly erroneous, nor did she abuse her discretion by denying the Petition for 

Contempt.5

We note that in Deitz v. Deitz, 222 W. Va. 46, 54, 659 S.E.2d 331, 339 (2008) (per 

curiam), the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia acknowledged that “[a]n integral 

part of the family court's authority to enter final orders of divorce is its corresponding 

power to enforce those orders through contempt proceedings.” Further, the family court’s 

enforcement of such orders is within the discretion of the family court. See Mark V.H. v. 

Dolores J.M., 232 W. Va. 378, 387, 752 S.E.2d 409, 418 (2013) (per curiam) and Joshua 

T. v. Angela M., No. 22-ICA-221, 2023 WL 2366493, at *2 (W. Va. Ct. App., Mar. 6, 

2023) (memorandum decision). Here, we do not find that the family court judge abused 

her discretion in denying the Petition for Contempt. 

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

Affirmed.

ISSUED: February 8, 2024

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Judge Thomas E. Scarr

Judge Charles O. Lorensen

Judge Daniel W. Greear

5 We note that at the hearing on June 28, 2023, when Ciara R. learned that James 

W. filed another Petition for Contempt earlier that morning, she expressed concern about

having to miss work to attend these hearings of petitions filed by James W. The family 

court judge advised James W. that if Ciara R. were to lose her job due to missing work to 

attend such hearings, it could affect his child support obligation. We do not find that the 

judge’s guidance was biased, prejudiced, or threatening, rather it was merely instructive.