1 

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT

OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES, 

BUREAU FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT,

Petitioner Below, Petitioner, 

vs.) No. 23-ICA-8 (Fam. Ct. Jefferson Cnty. No. FC-19-2022-D-107) 

 

SHAWN O., 

Respondent Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

 

Petitioner West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, Bureau of 

Child Support Enforcement (“BCSE”) appeals the Family Court of Jefferson County’s 

“Order Denying Motion to Reconsider” entered on December 12, 2022. The issue on 

appeal is whether BCSE is required to serve a Uniform Interstate Family Support Act 

(“UIFSA”)1 notice pursuant to Rule 4(k) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Shawn O. did not file a response.2

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 that there is error in the family court’s decision but no 

substantial question of law. This case satisfies the “limited circumstances” requirement of 

Rule 21(d) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure for reversal in a memorandum decision. 

For the reasons set forth below, the family court’s decision is reversed, and this case is 

remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

1 UIFSA provides uniform rules for the enforcement of family support orders. 

Specific to this appeal, UIFSA provides processes and procedures in which support orders 

issued in one state can be registered in another state for enforcement purposes. All fifty 

states have adopted UIFSA. UIFSA was adopted by West Virginia in 2002. W. Va. Code 

§ 48-16-1 (2002).

2 BCSE is represented by Mark French, Esq. Shawn O. is self-represented.

FILED

September 5, 2023

EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF WEST VIRGINIA
2

Shawn O. and Sherry N. are the biological parents of one child, who was born in 

Florida in 2000 when both parents lived in that state. Sometime in or around 2009, the 

parties separated. On October 14, 2009, the Circuit Court of Walton County, Florida 

entered an order directing Shawn O. to pay child support to Sherry N. Shawn O. moved to 

Charles Town, West Virginia sometime between the entry of the child support order and 

May of 2022. 

On May 9, 2022, the BCSE received a UIFSA petition from the State of Florida,

seeking to collect Shawn O.’s child support arrearages. On May 20, 2022, the BCSE 

initiated a case in the Family Court of Jefferson County for the purpose of registering the 

Florida child support order.3 As required by West Virginia Code § 48-16-605(a) (2015),

the Circuit Clerk of Jefferson County mailed Shawn O. a Notice of Registration of Foreign 

Order, along with attachments, on May 23, 2022, by registered mail, return receipt 

requested. Shawn O. received the documents and signed the mail receipt on May 31, 2022. 

On October 24, 2022, the family court dismissed the action for failure to comply 

with the time limit for service of process rule set forth in Rule 4(k) of the West Virginia 

Rules of Civil Procedure. The BCSE filed a motion for reconsideration on October 26, 

2022, along with evidence documenting that Shawn O. was sent the Notice of Registration 

of Foreign Order on May 23, 2022, by registered mail. The motion to reconsider was denied 

on December 12, 2022, again for failure to comply with Rule 4(k) of the West Virginia 

Rules of Civil Procedure. It is from the December 12, 2022, order that the BCSE now 

appeals. 

Our standard of review of a family court’s order is well settled:

“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., __ W. Va. __, __, 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).

3 The order registered with the family court reflects that Shawn O. is in arrears of 

$19,745.01 for the period of October 1, 2009, to April 22, 2022.
3

On appeal, BCSE argues that the family court erred when it applied Rule 4(k) of the 

West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure4 to UIFSA notice requirements.

5 UIFSA’s notice 

requirement states:

When a support order or income withholding order issued in another state or 

a foreign support order is registered, the clerk of the court shall notify the 

nonregistering party. The notice must be accompanied by a copy of the 

registered order and the documents and relevant information accompanying 

the order.

W. Va. Code § 48-16-605(a) (2015).

UIFSA directs that the family court “apply the procedural and substantive law 

generally applicable to similar proceedings” and that a foreign support order is “subject to 

the same procedures as an order issued by a tribunal of this state.” W. Va. Code § 48-16-

303(1) (2002); W. Va. Code § 48-16-603(b) (2015). The requirements in Rule 9(b) of the 

Rules of Practice and Procedure of Family Court are similar to the notice requirements set 

forth in UIFSA, which provide guidance as to what service is required in proceedings to 

register foreign support orders. 

We find no West Virginia case law addressing service of process or notice issues 

concerning registering a foreign support order under UIFSA. We note that “[i]n applying 

and construing [UIFSA] consideration must be given to the need to promote uniformity of 

the law with respect to its subject matter among states that enact it.” W. Va. Code § 48-16-

901 (2002).

BCSE cites a Florida Court of Appeals case holding that registration is complete 

under UIFSA upon filing of the foreign order. Dep’t of Revenue v. Cuevas, 862 So. 2d 810, 

811 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 2003). In Cuevas, the support enforcement agency appealed an 

order dismissing the registration of an out-of-state child support order. Id. at 810. The trial 

4 Rule 4(k) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure states:

If service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant within 

120 days after the filing of the complaint, the court, upon motion or on its 

own initiative after notice to the plaintiff, shall dismiss the action without 

prejudice as to that defendant or direct that service be effective within a 

specified time; provided that if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, 

the court shall extend the time for service for an appropriate period.

5 Shawn O. did not file a response brief. Accordingly, this Court is entitled to assume 

that Shawn O. agrees with BCSE’s view of the issues presented. W. Va. R. App. P. 10(d). 
4

court sua sponte dismissed the action because the support enforcement agency did not serve 

the respondent within the time allotted under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070 and 

Family Law of Procedure 12.070.6 Id. The Cuevas court found that the trial court erred in 

dismissing the case because “it was the obligation of the court, not the support enforcement 

agency, to assure that notice was properly sent.” Id. The court found that the support 

enforcement agency had fulfilled its obligation by filing the order and that if the court 

wished that service be sent in a different manner, then it was the court’s obligation to do 

so. Id.

The Court of Appeals of South Carolina has similarly declined to apply its civil 

procedure rule governing service of summons and complaint to UIFSA. S.C. Dep’t of Soc.

Servs. v. Johnson, 688 S.E.2d 588, 592 (S.C. Ct. App. 2009). In Johnson, the respondent

appealed the family court’s enforcement of a foreign child support order, arguing that he 

was required to be personally served in accordance with Rule 4 of the South Carolina Rules 

of Civil Procedure.7 Id. The court rejected the respondent’s argument, holding that “notice 

of registration for an existing child support order is separate and distinct from the service 

of a summons and complaint.” Id.

We find no authority contrary to these two out-of-state cases concerning the notice 

procedure to register a foreign support order under UIFSA. Like the courts of appeal in 

Florida and South Carolina, we find that there is no requirement in UIFSA requiring BCSE, 

6 Florida’s Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(j) is similar to Rule 4(k) of the West 

Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure. It states: 

If service of the initial process and initial pleading is not made on a defendant 

within 120 days after filing of the initial pleading directed to that defendant 

the court, on its own initiative after notice or on motion, must direct that 

service be effected within a specified time or must dismiss the action without 

prejudice or drop that defendant as a party; provided that if the plaintiff 

shows good cause or excusable neglect for the failure, the court must extend 

the time for service for an appropriate period. When a motion for leave to 

amend with the attached proposed amended complaint is filed, the 120-day 

period for service of amended complaints on the new party or parties will 

begin on the entry of an order granting leave to amend. A dismissal under 

this subdivision will not be considered a voluntary dismissal or operate as an 

adjudication on the merits under rule 1.420(a)(1).

7 Rule 4(d)(1) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure states that service 

must be effectuated “personally or by leaving copies thereof at his dwelling house or usual 

place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or by 

delivering a copy to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of 

process.”
5

the UIFSA support enforcement agency in West Virginia, to comply with Rule 4(k) of the 

West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure. Per Rule 9(b) of the West Virginia Rule of Practice 

and Procedure for Family Court, it was the obligation of the circuit clerk, not BCSE, to 

send notice to Shawn O. BCSE fulfilled its obligation by registering the order with the 

family court on May 20, 2022. The clerk similarly fulfilled its obligation when it sent 

Shawn O. the notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, on May 23, 2022, well 

within the twenty (20) day limit. Further, the notice properly included the information 

required by West Virginia Code § 48-16-605(b) (2015). 

Accordingly, the order denying the BCSE’s motion to reconsider entered December 

12, 2022, is hereby reversed and this case is remanded to the Family Court of Jefferson 

County for further proceedings consistent with this decision and UIFSA.

Reversed and Remanded.

ISSUED: September 5, 2023

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Judge Daniel W. Greear 

Judge Thomas E. Scarr 

Judge Charles O. Lorensen