Court Opinion

ID: 9368116
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-02 20:12:01.965242+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:05.774284
License: Public Domain

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

SAMUEL C.,                                                                     FILED
Petitioner Below, Petitioner                                              February 2, 2023
                                                                           EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK
vs.) No. 22-ICA-94 (Fam. Ct. Morgan Cnty. No. FC-33-2020-D-18)           INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                               OF WEST VIRGINIA

AMANDA C.,
Respondent Below, Respondent

                             MEMORANDUM DECISION

      Petitioner Samuel C. 1 appeals the Family Court of Morgan County’s August 18,
2022, Order Modifying Child Support, which lowered his child support obligation, but not
as much as he contends it should have. The West Virginia Department of Health and
Human Services, Bureau for Child Support Enforcement (“BCSE”), timely responded in
support of the family court’s ruling. 2 The child’s mother, Amanda C., did not file a
response brief.

       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.

       On August 2, 2021, the family court ordered that Samuel C. pay Amanda C. $874
per month for the support of their child. On July 13, 2022, the BCSE filed a Petition for
Downward Modification of Samuel C.’s child support obligation. The petition was based
on a request that Samuel C. had sent the BCSE regarding a change in his income and
employment status. The BCSE served the parents with the Petition for Downward
Modification on July 16, 2022.

       The family court held a hearing on August 10, 2022, to allow the BCSE and the
parents to present relevant evidence on this matter. By order entered August 18, 2022, the
family court lowered Samuel C.’s child support obligation to $674 per month based on a

       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).

       Samuel C. and Amanda C. are self-represented. Mark L. French, Esq. represents
       2

the BCSE.

                                              1
change in his income and employment status. It is from this modification order that Samuel
C. now 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).

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

       On appeal, Samuel C. seeks the further reduction of his child support obligation.
Although not entirely clear from Samuel C.’s brief, his arguments pertain to the cost of the
child’s daycare, whether the child could be enrolled in pre-kindergarten, and his change in
employment. In support of his arguments, Samuel C. submitted documents to this Court
that were not provided to, nor considered by, the family court. For example, he submitted
a note from his employer describing the seasonal nature of his employment. However, this
note was dated August 25, 2022, which was after the family court’s hearing and order.
Samuel C. also submitted medical records to this Court, but the records were not printed
until August 30, 2022, twenty days after the family court’s hearing. 3 The BCSE responds
in support of the family court’s August 18, 2022, order. The BCSE also argues that this
Court lacks appellate jurisdiction to consider matters not established in the record before
the family court.

       Having reviewed this matter, we find no clear error or abuse of discretion in the
family court’s August 18, 2022, order. Our review is limited to the evidence developed in
family court. See, e.g., W. Va. Code § 51-11-4(c) (2022) (“parties shall be afforded a full
and meaningful review on the record of the lower tribunal”); W. Va. R. App. P. 6(a) (2022)
(“The record on appeal consists of the documents and exhibits filed in the proceedings in
the lower tribunal, the official transcript or recording of proceedings, if any, and the docket
entries of the lower tribunal.”). As such, we do not consider the extraneous materials that
Samuel C. has submitted. 4

       In addition to being outside of the record, we observe that these medical records
       3

do not specifically address how Samuel C.’s medical conditions might impact his
employment status and income.
       4
        Although Rule 7(g) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure permits a party to file a
motion to supplement the record, Samuel C. has not filed such a motion. Moreover, there

                                               2
       According to the family court’s August 18, 2022, order, the family court found a
significant change in circumstances warranting modification because the parties’ incomes
had changed since the entry of the earlier support order. The family court then took into
account Samuel C.’s gross income, Amanda C.’s gross income, the amount of childcare
expenses, and the amount of pre-existing support obligations that both parents pay.
Utilizing the child support formula, the family court arrived at the new, lowered, monthly
support obligation of $674. Samuel C.’s arguments on appeal do not establish that the
family court committed clear error or an abuse of discretion.

      Accordingly, we affirm.

                                                                                Affirmed.

ISSUED: February 2, 2023

CONCURRED IN BY:

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

are no grounds apparent in this matter to suggest that we would have granted a motion to
supplement the record. Samuel C. indicates that the documents he has submitted to our
Court are documents the family court judge wanted, but the time to provide evidence was
during the family court’s hearing—not on appeal.

                                            3