Court Opinion

ID: 9368136
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-02 20:12:09.976924+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:05.804214
License: Public Domain

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

                                                                                 FILED
Amanda H.,                                                                  February 2, 2023
Petitioner Below, Petitioner                                                 EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK
                                                                           INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
vs.) No. 22-ICA-61 (Fam. Ct. Jackson Cnty. No. FC-18-2006-D-143)                 OF WEST VIRGINIA

James S.,
Respondent Below, Respondent

                               MEMORANDUM DECISION

      Petitioner Amanda H. (“Mother”) 1 appeals the Family Court of Jackson County’s
August 1, 2022, order denying her petition for modification of a parenting plan.
Respondent James S. (“Father”) filed a timely response. 2 Mother filed a reply.

       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 the family court erred in failing to set forth findings of fact
and conclusions of law sufficient to allow meaningful appellate review. This case satisfies
the “limited circumstances” requirement of Rule 21(d) of the West Virginia Rules of
Appellate Procedure, and a memorandum decision is appropriate to reverse the family
court’s August 1, 2022, order, and remand the case to family court with instructions to draft
a new order setting forth findings of fact and conclusions of law sufficient for meaningful
appellate review.

       The parties were previously married and share two sons, one of whom is B.S., a
minor. The parties divorced in 2006 and mother was awarded full custody of the parties’
       3

sons, with father having visitation with the sons every other weekend and four hours every
Wednesday. However, the parties agreed to a “different arrangement” that permitted father

       1
         Consistent with our practice in cases with sensitive facts, we use initials where
necessary to protect the identities of those involved in the case. See W.Va. R. App. Pro
40(e)(1); Amanda C. v. Christopher P., No. 22-ICA-2, 2022 WL 17098574, ____ W. Va.
____, ____ S.E. 2d ____ (W. Va. Ct. App. 2022).
       2
           Both mother and father are self-represented.
       3
          The parties’ other son, L.S., has reached the age of majority and, thus, is not at
issue in this appeal.

                                               1
to see his sons more often 4 and their arrangement remained in place for more than fifteen
years.

       On January 19, 2022, father filed, in the Family Court of Jackson County, a petition
for modification requesting a change in the parties’ parenting plan. Father stated that B.S.
has been living full time in his home following a December 16, 2021, domestic violence
incident at mother’s home. 5 In the petition, father alleged that B.S. did not feel safe at
mother’s home. A hearing on respondent’s petition for modification was held before the
family court on January 19, 2022. During the hearing, the court heard testimony from B.S.
and mother. B.S. advised the court that he wished to primarily reside with father because
he does not feel safe at mother’s home with his stepfather.

       By order entered on March 8, 2022, the family court granted respondent’s petition
for modification and awarded father primary residential custody of B.S., with mother
having visitation every weekend but the third weekend of the month. The court directed
that mother’s husband, A.H., not be present during visitation. Mother filed a motion for
reconsideration of the family court’s ruling, which was denied in a March 15, 2022, order.

        In April of 2022, mother moved out of her marital home in Cross Lanes, West
Virginia, and into an apartment in South Charleston, West Virginia, to physically separate
from her husband and to be closer to B.S.’s school. On May 18, 2022, mother and her
husband, A.H., were divorced. On August 1, 2022, mother filed a petition for modification
of the parenting plan established in the March 8, 2022, order, and requested 50/50 custody.
In her petition, under the section provided to identify the circumstances to justify the
modification, mother stated that she “divorced [A.H.], no longer lives with” A.H., and has
maintained her own residence since April of 2022. By order entered on August 2, 2022,
the family court denied mother’s petition for modification. In the August 2, 2022, order,
the family court simply and summarily stated that “[a]fter review of the petition, the Court
finds that the petition fails to state a significant change in circumstances that would warrant
a modification under the West Virginia Code.” The family court did not provide any

       Per mother, the parties’ informal agreed parenting plan would change every two
       4

weeks. Week 1: Mother would have the children on Monday, Tuesday, Friday, Saturday,
and Sunday and father would have the children Wednesday and Thursday. Week 2: Father
would have the children on Monday, Tuesday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday and mother
would have the children Wednesday and Thursday.
       5
        The record reflects that on December 16, 2021, an “altercation” occurred between
mother and her then husband, A.H., during which A.H. hit mother, and threatened and
cursed B.S.

                                              2
findings of fact or conclusions of law to support its decision, and instead offered only one
sentence of less than forty words to explain its ruling. 6

       The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia has remanded such wholly
insufficient orders finding that

              to properly review an order of a family court, “[t]he order must
              be sufficient to indicate the factual and legal basis for the
              [family court]’s ultimate conclusion so as to facilitate a
              meaningful review of the issues presented.” Province v.
              Province, 196 W.Va. 473, 483, 473 S.E.2d 894, 904
              (1996); See also Nestor v. Bruce Hardwood Flooring, L.P.,
              206 W.Va. 453, 456, 525 S.E.2d 334, 337 (1999) (“[O]ur task
              as an appellate court is to determine whether the circuit court's
              reasons for its order are supported by the record.”). “Where the
              lower tribunals fail to meet this standard—i.e. making only
              general, conclusory or inexact findings—we must vacate the
              judgment and remand the case for further findings and
              development.” Province, 196 W.Va. at 483, 473 S.E.2d at 904.

Collisi v. Collisi, 231 W. Va. 359, 363–64, 745 S.E.2d 250, 254–55 (2013).

       Here, the family court neglected to provide sufficient findings and conclusions in
support of its ultimate decision to allow for meaningful appellate review. Accordingly, the
family court's order is insufficient as a matter of law and cannot be upheld.

       For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the family court’s August 1, 2022, order and
remand the case to family court with instructions for the court to enter a new order
containing findings of fact and conclusions of law sufficient to allow meaningful appellate

       6
         In Jared A. v. Molly A., 246 W. Va. 556, 874 S.E.2d 358 (2022), the Supreme
Court reasoned that West Virginia Code § 48-9-401(a) (2001) establishes three criteria for
change in circumstances modifications to parenting plans. First, the facts relevant to the
change in circumstances must not have been known or anticipated in the order that
established the parenting plan. Jared A., 246 W. Va. at ___, 874 S.E.2d at 364. Second, the
change in circumstances, whether “of the child or of one or both parents [,]” must be
substantial. Id. Third, the modification must be “necessary to serve the best interests of the
child.” Id.

       While West Virginia Code § 48-9-401(a) was amended in 2022, the criteria set for
in West Virginia Code § 48-9-401(a) (2022) remains the same as the 2001 version cited by
the Supreme Court in Jared A.
                                              3
review. The Clerk of this Court is hereby directed to issue the mandate contemporaneously
herewith.

                                               Reversed and remanded with instructions.

ISSUED: February 2, 2023

CONCURRED IN BY:

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

                                           4