In re Change of Name Regarding Minors, S.U., 21-0258

Background

S.U., a self-represented father with a long history of litigating against C.J. (the children’s mother), repeatedly filed petitions to change the names of two minor children.
Family Court of Mason County held jurisdiction over the parties’ custody matters, dismissed S.U.’s name-change petitions for failing to name/respondent and for being filed to avoid Mason County orders, and warned S.U. not to file pro se name-change petitions; those orders were final and appealable but S.U. did not appeal them.
S.U. refiled the petitions in Kanawha County (dockets 20-P-138, 20-P-139); Kanawha transferred them to Mason, and S.U. moved in Kanawha to “reinstate” the petitions instead of challenging Mason’s orders on proper procedural routes.
The Kanawha Family Court denied the motion to reinstate and barred acceptance of future self-represented name-change filings by S.U. relating to these children; the Kanawha Circuit Court dismissed S.U.’s appeal of that denial.
The West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed: it limited review to the Kanawha/Mason proceedings, refused to revisit prior determinations that C.J. is the legal mother and that Mason County had jurisdiction, and upheld restrictions on S.U.’s pro se filings given findings of fraud and prior contempt.
A concurrence urged Mason County to use enhanced civil-contempt remedies under W. Va. Code § 51-2A-9 if S.U. continues vexatious filings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (S.U.)	Defendant's Argument (C.J./Respondent)	Held
Whether Kanawha court erred by denying motion to reinstate name-change petitions after transfer to Mason County	Transfer improper; Kanawha should reinstate petitions	Mason County had jurisdiction and prior dismissals were final; Kanawha lacked authority to undo Mason’s orders	Kanawha properly denied reinstatement; relief from Mason’s transfer/dismissal was not available in Kanawha and S.U. failed to appeal Mason orders
Whether denial violated due process by failing to hold hearings or provide notice to the mother	S.U. claimed denial deprived him of due process and the court failed to direct service on respondent	Petitions were filed without naming or serving the statutorily recognized mother; prior courts warned S.U. to provide notice	No due-process error; mother was entitled to notice and petitions without service were improper
Whether the courts misapplied West Virginia name-change statute and venue rules (WV Code § 48-25-101 and § 56-1-1)	S.U. argued statutes permit filing in birth county and challenge venue transfer	Prior orders and custody jurisdiction in Mason controlled venue; procedural posture prevented collateral attack here	Court declined to reach statutory venue arguments because Mason County’s final orders governed and were not appealed
Whether restrictions on S.U.’s ability to file self-represented pleadings violated access-to-courts rights	S.U. contended limitations unlawfully curtailed his right to file	Courts cited repeated frivolous, fraudulent filings and contempts; access is not unfettered	Restrictions upheld as reasonable given pattern of vexatious litigation and prior contempt findings

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Mitchem v. Kirkpatrick, 199 W. Va. 501, 485 S.E.2d 445 (1997) (writ of prohibition is appropriate to challenge transfers when appeal is inadequate)
State ex rel. Riffle v. Ranson, 195 W. Va. 121, 464 S.E.2d 763 (1995) (original actions preferred for substantial venue questions)
Nelson v. W. Va. Pub. Emp. Ins. Bd., 171 W. Va. 445, 300 S.E.2d 86 (1982) (courts may discourage suits filed to oppress or cheat others)
Mathena v. Haines, 219 W. Va. 417, 633 S.E.2d 771 (2006) (access to courts is a fundamental right but not without limitations)
State ex rel. James v. Hun, 201 W. Va. 139, 494 S.E.2d 503 (1997) (meaningful access to the courts is not completely unfettered)
James M.B. v. Carolyn M., 193 W. Va. 289, 456 S.E.2d 16 (1995) (procedural guidance on styling Rule 59(e) motions)