Court Opinion

ID: 9371383
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-15 21:15:12.602988+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:27.490454
License: Public Domain

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

                                                                               FILED
DESHAWNE T.,                                                              February 15, 2023
Respondent Below, Petitioner                                               EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK
                                                                         INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

vs.) No. 22-ICA-5 (Fam. Ct. Kanawha Cnty. No. 17-D-789)                        OF WEST VIRGINIA

WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES,
BUREAU FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT,
Petitioner Below, Respondent

                             MEMORANDUM DECISION

       Petitioner Deshawne T. 1 appeals the Final Contempt and Judgment Order entered
by the Family Court of Kanawha County on July 18, 2022, pertaining to Deshawne T.’s
unpaid child support obligation. Respondent Department of Health and Human Resources,
Bureau for Child Support Enforcement (“BCSE”) responds in support of the family court’s
order. Deshawne T. has not filed a reply. 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 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.
       Deshawne T. and Mileah W. are the parents of a child born in 2014. In October
2017, Deshawne T. was ordered to pay Mileah W. $188.20 per month in child support.
This support obligation was reduced to zero for several months in 2020 while Deshawne
T. was incarcerated. Effective on his November 1, 2020, release from incarceration, his

       1
         To protect the confidentiality of the juvenile 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
         Deshawne T. is self-represented. Our Court’s Clerk’s Office contacted him on
multiple occasions regarding the possibility of having counsel appointed for this appeal,
but Deshawne T. failed to submit the required documentation of financial eligibility. The
BCSE is represented by Jennifer K. Akers, Esq. Mileah W. is the recipient of the child
support, but did not participate in this family court proceeding or this appeal.

                                              1
monthly support obligation was set at $50. It is undisputed that Deshawne T. has not timely
and fully paid the child support.

       In response to a petition filed by the BCSE, on May 13, 2022, the family court
entered an order directing Deshawne T. to appear in court on July 18, 2022, to show cause
why he should not be held in contempt for the failure to pay his court-ordered child support
obligation. Attached to this order was a document warning Deshawne T. that a contempt
finding could result in jail time up to 180 days or until he purged the contempt. The
document further instructed: “PLEASE BE ADVISED that you may be entitled to a court-
appointed attorney to represent your interest in this contempt issue. In order to determine
your eligibility to receive court-appointed counsel, please immediately contact the
Kanawha County Court Administrator’s Office at (304) 357-0369 and complete the
application process.” The record does not reflect whether Deshawne T. contacted the Court
Administrator’s Office.

        Deshawne T. appeared without counsel at the July 18, 2022, hearing. The BCSE
advised the court that his unpaid child support plus interest totaled $3,387.51, and no
payments had been made since March of 2021. At the hearing, Deshawne T. did not dispute
his failure to pay or the amount of the arrears. However, he explained that he had been laid
off from work due to COVID shutdowns, he had difficulty finding transportation, and he
had been seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident. Deshawne T. provided the court
with medical documentation of his injuries. He also testified that he was enrolled in a
graphic design program at BridgeValley Community and Technical College and, upon his
completion of an online certification test that he would be taking very soon, a “Jumpstart
program” would pay him a $1,500 incentive. Deshawne T. told the court that he would use
some of this incentive money to pay toward his child support arrears. He presented a
witness who works for BridgeValley to confirm his enrollment, although the witness did
not verify his eligibility for a $1,500 payment.

       During the hearing, the family court found that Deshawne T. was in arrears and
entered judgment in the amount of $3,387.51. Based on Deshawne T.’s representation that
he would soon be receiving $1,500, the court ordered him to pay $750 by August 15, 2022,
to purge his contempt. Deshawne T. responded that he “could do that,” i.e., pay this amount
by the specified date. A written Final Contempt and Judgment Order reflecting these
rulings was entered the same day.

      Deshawne T. appeals the Final Contempt and Judgment Order to this Court. We are
guided by the following standard of review:

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

                                             2
       abuse of discretion standard. We review questions of law de novo.” Syl. Pt.,
       Carr v. Hancock, 216 W. Va. 474, 607 S.E.2d 803 (2004).

Amanda C. v. Christopher P., No. 22-ICA-2, __ W. Va. __, __, __S.E.2d __, __, 2022 WL
17098574, at *3 (Ct. App. Nov. 18, 2022); accord W. Va. Code § 51-2A-14(c) (2005)
(specifying standards for appellate court review of family court order).

        In his brief to this Court, Deshawne T. essentially makes three arguments. First, in
a solitary sentence, he states that because the family court could have sent him to jail, the
court should have appointed him a lawyer. We recognize that the Supreme Court of
Appeals of West Virginia has held that “[a]n indigent defendant is entitled to a court-
appointed attorney where he is charged by way of contempt for failing to pay court-ordered
alimony or support payments.” Syl., Moore v. Hall, 176 W. Va. 83, 341 S.E.2d 703 (1986).
However, Deshawne T. fails to explain how the family court’s written instructions for
obtaining an appointed lawyer violated Moore or his rights—especially since he was not
sent to jail at the July 18, 2022, hearing. He also does not say whether he submitted an
application and his financial information to the court administrator for a determination of
his eligibility for appointed counsel. “[A] skeletal argument, really nothing more than an
assertion, does not preserve a claim[.]” State, Dep’t of Health & Hum. Res., Child Advoc.
Off. v. Robert Morris N., 195 W. Va. 759, 765, 466 S.E.2d 827, 833 (1995) (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted). Similarly, Rule 10(c)(7) requires a petitioner’s brief to
contain an argument clearly exhibiting the points of fact and law presented. Deshawne T.’s
brief, which includes nothing but a one sentence assertion, fails to establish any error. 3

       Next, Deshawne T. argues that the family court failed to consider all of his evidence,
including his medical documentation, his disability, and his unemployed status. These
contentions are refuted by a review of the video recording of the family court’s July 18,
2022, hearing. The family court admitted all of the evidence Deshawne T. offered,
reviewed and questioned him about the medical documents, and carefully listened to the
explanation of his circumstances. The judge explained that the order to pay $750 was based
on Deshawne T.’s representation that he would soon be receiving $1,500.

       3
         This Court attempted to arrange appointed counsel for Deshawne T. to assist in the
formulation of his appellate arguments, but he failed to cooperate. See supra, note 2. Even
if a person is financially entitled to appointed counsel, that person has an obligation to
complete the required procedural steps. However, with our holding today, we do not rule
on whether the family court’s written notice was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of
Moore.

                                             3
        Finally, Deshawne T. argues that the court increased his child support after setting
it at $50 per month. A review of the record reflects that this is not what the court did. The
court recognized that his support obligation was only $50 per month. The single payment
of $750 was ordered to pay down some of the $3,387.51 in back support and interest.

       Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, we find no clear error or
abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm.

                                                                                  Affirmed.

ISSUED: February 15, 2023

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Judge Daniel W. Greear
Judge Thomas E. Scarr
Judge Charles O. Lorensen

                                             4