Court Opinion

ID: 9371386
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-15 21:15:13.818935+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:27.482697
License: Public Domain

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

                                                                               FILED
ANDREW W.,                                                                February 15, 2023
Petitioner Below, Petitioner                                               EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK
                                                                         INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

vs.) No. 22-ICA-62 (Fam. Ct. Clay Cnty. No. FC-08-2019-D-23)                   OF WEST VIRGINIA

SHEYANNE H.,
Respondent Below, Respondent

                                MEMORANDUM DECISION

       Petitioner Andrew W. 1 appeals the Order Granting Petition for Modification entered
by the Family Court of Clay County on August 8, 2022. Andrew W. asserts, inter alia, that
the family court erroneously reduced his parenting time. Respondent Sheyanne H. did not
submit 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 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.

       Andrew W. and Sheyanne H. share one child, age three. The parties were divorced
by order entered January 10, 2020. Pursuant to the divorce order, Sheyanne H. was
designated the primary residential parent and Andrew W. was granted one supervised two-
hour visit per week. Andrew W. was also required to schedule and attend an intake with a
mental health provider to evaluate his medication usage and mental health. The family
court scheduled two follow-up hearings, on June 4, 2020, and November 5, 2020, to
determine whether additional parenting time for Andrew W. would be warranted. 3 After

       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
           In this appeal, neither party is represented by counsel.
       3
        At the November 5, 2020 hearing, a representative from Child Protective Services
(“CPS”) testified about the contents of Andrew H.’s parental fitness evaluation. Andrew
H. appealed to the Clay County Circuit Court because he had not been provided a copy of

                                                1
three hearings in family court, Andrew W.’s parenting time was established at two hours
of supervised visitation per week.

        Sheyanne H. filed a petition for modification 4 requesting that Andrew W.’s
parenting time be reduced because Andrew W. regularly terminated his two-hour visits
early. The family court entered its order on August 8, 2022, wherein it found that Andrew
W. regularly terminated his visits early, failed to encourage the minor child to bond with
him, failed to attend weekly psychotherapy sessions as was required at the November 5,
2020 hearing, and failed to obtain a psychiatric consultation for mental health management.
Accordingly, the family court reduced Andrew W.’s parenting time to ninety minutes per
week. It is from the August 8, 2022, order that Andrew W. appeals. Our standard of review
in this matter 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-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).

       On appeal, Andrew W. asserts that the family court erred by decreasing his
parenting time and makes these arguments in support of his claim. First, he contends that
the family court took away his basic human right to present evidence at the hearing and
participate in caring for his child. Second, he asserts that the family court erred by
considering evidence presented by a third party. 5 Third, he contends that the family court
did not consider evidence about child abuse stemming from the child’s maternal
grandmother. We disagree.

the evaluation beforehand. The Clay County Circuit Court reversed and remanded the
matter back to family court to conduct a full hearing on the issue of parenting. At the
hearing on remand, Andrew W. was granted two hours per week visitation.
       4
           The filing date of the petition for modification was not provided in the record.
       5
          Andrew W. does not specifically state what third party evidence was considered
in error. Based on the record, it appears he is likely referring to CPS’s presentation of his
parental fitness evaluation at the November 5, 2020 hearing.

                                               2
        Upon review of the record, we conclude that Andrew W. failed to establish error or
abuse of discretion by the family court. The family court considered the testimony of the
parties as well as three witnesses, and properly found that “[Andrew W.’s] legal arguments
lack[ed] merit.” On appeal, Andrew W.’s brief merely consists of self-serving statements
relating to his displeasure with the proceedings below, coupled with unsubstantiated
allegations of abuse and neglect. Andrew W. also fails to cite any statutory authority or
precedent to support his arguments as required by Rule 10 of the Rules of Appellate
Procedure. As such, we find no basis in law to warrant relief.

      Accordingly, we affirm the family court’s August 8, 2022, order.

                                                                                Affirmed.

ISSUED: February 15, 2023

CONCURRED IN BY:

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

                                            3