In re K.R. and J.R., 20-0031

Background

Father (S.R.) obtained full custody of two children after mother’s death; maternal grandparents (respondents) had cared for the children for extended periods before and during litigation.
Grandparents sought custody/visitation; court previously denied their custody claim but ordered grandparent visitation (first and third weekends plus holidays and phone contact) in an order issued Jan. 23, 2019 (petitioner did not appeal that order).
Guardian later filed to modify disposition seeking to transfer custody to grandparents; father filed a counterpetition to terminate grandparent visitation.
The circuit court held multiple hearings, including an in camera interview of child K.R.; attorneys for parties were excluded from that interview (guardian and court were present).
On Dec. 20, 2019 the circuit court denied termination of visitation but reduced the frequency (one weekend per month, one week in summer, reduced phone contact), finding continued grandparent contact was in the children’s best interests and no material violation of visitation terms.
Father appealed, arguing (1) the court erred by taking in camera testimony of K.R. and excluding counsel, and (2) the court erred in denying his motion to terminate grandparents’ visitation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (S.R.)	Defendant's Argument (Respondents)	Held
Whether the circuit court erred by conducting an in camera interview of child K.R.	Interview unnecessary because court already ruled custody would not change and father would stipulate child’s wishes; therefore testimony irrelevant.	Court had discretion to evaluate evidence relevant to visitation and best interests; child wanted to speak and court must consider children’s views.	No error; court permissibly found it needed to hear the child and acted within evidentiary discretion.
Whether exclusion of parties’ attorneys from the in camera interview violated Rule 8	Exclusion improper because Rule 8(b) permits attorneys to attend unless their presence would be “especially” intimidating; court’s finding allegedly insufficient.	Court found attorneys’ presence would be intimidating given parties’ roles; guardian’s participation was permissible.	No error; court’s explanation supported discretionary exclusion and guardian’s participation did not warrant reversal.
Whether Rule 8(a)’s presumption to exclude child testimony was misapplied	Court should have excluded testimony based on potential psychological harm outweighing necessity.	Child wished to speak; court balanced potential harm against necessity and best interests.	No error; court concluded necessity outweighed potential harm after evaluating child’s request and best interests.
Whether the court erred in denying father’s motion to terminate grandparent visitation	Grandparents’ actions allegedly undermined father–child relationship; termination required to protect best interests.	Grandparents did not materially violate visitation terms; continued contact serves children’s best interests (close prior relationship; trauma from mother’s homicide).	No error; termination under §48-10-1002 requires a material violation (none found); §48-10-1001 allows modification/termination based on best interests, and the court reasonably found continued, reduced visitation was in the children’s best interests.

Key Cases Cited

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W. Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (standard of review for circuit-court fact findings in abuse/neglect matters).
McDougal v. McCammon, 193 W. Va. 229, 455 S.E.2d 788 (1995) (trial courts afforded broad discretion in evidentiary rulings).
In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (clarifying appellate review standards for factual findings).