Court Opinion

ID: 9598215
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:06:34.214214+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:29:50.211138
License: Public Domain

McGRAW, Justice,
dissenting:
As the majority correctly notes, a trial court’s findings on the issue of child custody are largely discretionary and will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly wrong. See Leach v. Bright, supra. Although there was considerable contradictory testimony below, there is evidence on the record to support the lower court’s findings. However, there is also evidence which indicates that the appellant, despite her limited resources, was making a good faith effort to provide better living conditions for her children. In light of this evidence, I am disturbed by the trial court’s decision to grant permanent custody to the infant’s paternal grandparents.
I also find confusing the lower court’s statement that if either party could demonstrate a favorable change in conditions, they would be permitted to petition the court for a change of custody. However, in order to justify a change of child custody, in addition to a change in circumstances of the party seeking custody, it must also be shown that such change would material*129ly promote the welfare of the child. Horton v. Horton, 164 W.Va. 358, 264 S.E.2d 160 (1980); Cloud v. Cloud, 161 W.Va. 45, 239 S.E.2d 669 (1977). Given the impecunious situation in which the appellant finds herself, it is unlikely that she will be able to meet this standard. I therefore disagree with the majority’s statement that “this option protects the parents’ legitimate interest in the custody of their child.” Majority opinion, supra at 903, fn. On the record before the Court, I believe that a temporary award of custody to the grandparents would have been more appropriate and, indeed, may have been intended by the lower court. I would remand for clarification on this point.
I am authorized to state that Chief Justice MILLER joins me in this dissenting opinion.