Opinion ID: 1282783
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Supervision of Visitation

Text: The circuit court granted DHHR relief in prohibition from the family court's order directing the agency to supervise visitation while the investigation regarding the safety of the children was being completed. Relying on the provisions of syllabus point three of Mary D. v. Watt, 190 W.Va. 341, 438 S.E.2d 521 (1992), the circuit court arrived at the following conclusion regarding supervised visitation in its October 25, 2007, order: 19. The Court does not believe that the Family Court can order supervised visitation without making a finding regarding the necessity for supervised visits, and without giving the parties an opportunity to be heard on proposed supervisors. Furthermore, when ordering supervised visits, and choosing a supervisor, the Family Court must consider and attempt to select a supervisor that is already familiar with the child, so as to minimize any stress to the child. By failing to give the parties an opportunity to be heard on this issue, and not making a finding as to why supervised visits are required, the Court believes the Family Court's order is erroneous as a matter of law. . . . DHHR does not contest this particular portion of the circuit court's decision. Instead, DHHR claims that the circuit court erred by not specifically finding that the family court lacked any authority under the facts of this case to order supervised visitation solely because the family court did not make the requisite finding that abuse and neglect were present. Relying on this Court's per curiam decision in In re: Jason S. and Jasmine B., 219 W.Va. 485, 637 S.E.2d 583 (2006), DHHR maintains that the family court must first make a finding based on credible evidence regarding the presence of neglect or abuse before it may order supervised visitation. We find DHHR's emphasis on findings of abuse and neglect in this regard misplaced. Our case law recognizes that [i]n visitation as well as custody matters, we have traditionally held paramount the best interests of the child. Syl. Pt. 5, Carter v. Carter, 196 W.Va. 239, 470 S.E.2d 193 (1996). We have further held that [b]ecause of the extraordinary nature of supervised visitation, such visitation should be ordered when necessary to protect the best interests of the children. Id., Syl. Pt. 3, 470 S.E.2d 193, in part. Moreover, we have said that in determining the propriety of supervised visitation, the best interest of a child includes determining that the child is safe from the fear of emotional and psychological trauma which he or she may experience during the course of visitation. Mary D., Syl. Pt. 3, in part. Although a family court is required to determine that claims of a child's safety being jeopardized are supported by credible or trustworthy evidence before supervised visitation may be ordered, threats to safety are not limited to acts of abuse and neglect. See e.g., Alireza D. v. Kim Elaine W., 198 W.Va. 178, 479 S.E.2d 688 (1996); Mary Ann P. v. William R. P., Jr., 197 W.Va. 1, 475 S.E.2d 1 (1996); Belinda Kay C. v. John David C., 193 W.Va. 196, 455 S.E.2d 565 (1995). Supervision and/or further restrictions to visitation are required to be ordered under the provisions of West Virginia Code § 48-9-209 (2008) (2008 Supp.) when credible information establishes that abuse and neglect as well as other enumerated conditions exist. However, the court is not absolved of its responsibility to examine factors beyond those listed in the statute mandating limitations on visitation when the court has facts before it which raise concerns about exposure of a child to harm during visitation. The best interests of the child remains the overarching consideration of courts in making custody decisions, including visitation matters. This Court has not had occasion to address the precise issue of whether supervised visitation may be ordered during the pendency of a court-ordered investigation into the risk of harm posed to children should a request for unsupervised visitation be granted. As the circuit court recognized, we addressed the general procedure that courts should follow prior to ordering supervised visitation in syllabus point three of Mary D., in which we stated: Where supervised visitation is ordered pursuant to . . . [statutory law], [7] the best interests of a child include determining that the child is safe from the fear of emotional and psychological trauma which he or she may experience. The person(s) appointed to supervise the visitation should have had some prior contact with the child so that the child is sufficiently familiar with and trusting of that person in order for the child to have secure feelings and so that the visitation is not harmful to his or her emotional well being. Such a determination should be incorporated as a finding of the family [court judge] . . . or circuit court. The circuit court judge applied the general precepts of this holding from Mary D. to the present case in order to determine that supervised visitation was inappropriate during the investigation period. The October 25, 2007, order reflects the circuit court's reasoning as follows: 22. In the instant case, the Family Court did not make any specific finding that abuse has occurred that would support the extraordinary step of supervised visits, only that there was potential risk in not supervising visits. Also, the Family Court did not consider the wishes of the parties when choosing a supervisor, and it does not appear from the order that the Family Court made any attempt to select a supervisor that was close with the children, and has a relationship with the children. Furthermore, the Family Court did not consult with proposed supervisor (CPS), before ordering CPS to supervise visitation. The Court believes that before the Family Court requires any third party to supervise visitation, that third party should have an opportunity to be heard as to their willingness to supervise, and their relationship with the children. Thereafter, the circuit court order suggests the following procedure: 23. Before Judge Ruckman can order CPS to supervise visitation, the Family Court must conduct a hearing and give all parties, including CPS, notice and an opportunity to be heard on the issue. The Family Court must make findings of fact and conclusions on the record regarding the need for supervision, and give all parties an opportunity to be heard on proposed supervisors. Recognizing that CPS does have an extensive caseload, the Family Court must exhaust other options for supervisors, for example other family members or organizations that provide for family visits, before ordering CPS to supervise the visits. We find the circuit court's approach to be a sound extension of existing law. Consequently, we hold a family court finding potential safety risks to minor children that warrant a court-ordered investigation pursuant to West Virginia Code § 48-9-301 may not order visitation between a child and the party posing the potential risks while the investigation proceeds. Supervised visitation may be ordered following the investigation if the court finds the investigation or other information supplies the requisite credible evidentiary basis to believe a child's safety will be jeopardized if visitation is not supervised. Where supervised visitation is contemplated, the family court should schedule a hearing, with notice to all parties and any proposed supervisors, regarding the most suitable source for supervision under the circumstances. The purpose of the hearing is to determine the most appropriate source for supervision by considering (1) whether the child is comfortable and familiar with a potential supervisor through prior contact or otherwise, and (2) whether the potential supervisor is willing and has ability to fulfill the obligation. In order to provide an adequate basis for review, this determination should be incorporated as a finding of the family court judge in the order granting supervised visitation. The circuit court's order also cautions the family court not to unduly burden DHHR with responsibility for supervising visitation given the caseload of the CPS workers and the gravity of the work they are called upon to perform. We echo this concern and emphasize that family courts should exhaust other available and reasonable options such as family members or community organizations before looking to DHHR to provide supervision of visitation.