In The Interest Of J.L., Jr.
234 W. Va. 116
| W. Va. | 2014Background
- Parents divorced in 2005; father (Jason L.) was ordered to pay child support; enforcement actions in family court produced a large arrearage judgment.
- While family-court contempt/enforcement proceedings were pending, a juvenile abuse-and-neglect petition was filed in Wood County Circuit Court concerning the child.
- The family court dismissed its contempt proceedings without prejudice because Rule 6 required deference to the circuit court once an abuse-and-neglect case was pending.
- In the circuit-court abuse-and-neglect case the court terminated the father’s parental rights and entered an "Order of Modified Support" (reducing monthly support to $82.83 and setting a $50/month arrearage payment). The court’s support order lacked explicit guideline calculations or findings.
- Mother filed a pro se contempt petition for nonpayment; the circuit court found father in contempt but remanded the enforcement and all future support modification hearings to family court for convenience.
- The Bureau for Child Support Enforcement (BCSE) appealed; the West Virginia Supreme Court reversed the remand and directed the circuit court to retain jurisdiction and correct its support order per governing rules and precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (BCSE) | Defendant's Argument (Circuit Court / Respondent) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a circuit court that enters or modifies child support in an abuse-and-neglect proceeding may remand enforcement/modification to family court | Remand improper; circuit court retains jurisdiction over support orders entered in Chapter 49 proceedings and may not transfer them to family court | Family court is more convenient, handles support matters routinely, and judicial economy favors remand despite Rule 6 | Remand was improper; circuit court retains exclusive jurisdiction over support orders entered in abuse-and-neglect case; may not transfer/remand such matters to family court (reversed and remanded) |
| Whether circuit court must use/support findings showing application (or deviation) from the Child Support Guidelines when ordering/modifying support in abuse-and-neglect cases | BCSE: Guidelines are mandatory; deviations require specific findings on the record | Circuit court’s terse order did not show guideline use or explain deviation | Court held Guidelines are mandatory under Rule 16a(b) and prior precedent; if not used, court must make on-record findings explaining why |
| Whether circuit court’s termination of parental rights and related factual findings were sufficiently detailed | BCSE implicitly argues orders should contain sufficient findings | Circuit court relied on parties’ agreement and entered brief termination language | Court instructed circuit court on remand to include thorough factual findings supporting termination and dispositional rulings |
| Whether a guardian ad litem was appointed for the child | BCSE (and Court) stress child is entitled to representation | Not clear from record that a GAL was appointed | Court remanded and directed appointment of a guardian ad litem if none had been appointed |
Key Cases Cited
- Lindsie D.L. v. Richard W.S., 214 W. Va. 750, 591 S.E.2d 308 (W. Va. 2003) (family courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; circuit courts have original and general jurisdiction)
- State ex rel. Paul B. v. Hill, 201 W. Va. 248, 496 S.E.2d 198 (W. Va. 1997) (circuit courts have jurisdiction to entertain abuse-and-neglect petitions under Chapter 49)
- West Virginia Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Bureau for Child Support Enforcement v. Smith, 218 W. Va. 480, 624 S.E.2d 917 (W. Va. 2005) (when a child is subject of a Chapter 49 proceeding in circuit court, that court, not family court, has jurisdiction to establish child support)
- In re Ryan B., 224 W. Va. 461, 686 S.E.2d 601 (W. Va. 2009) (circuit court ordinarily must require terminated parent to continue paying support pursuant to Guidelines; deviations require findings)
- In re Jeffrey R.L., 190 W. Va. 24, 435 S.E.2d 162 (W. Va. 1993) (child in abuse-and-neglect case is entitled to effective representation; guardians ad litem and counsel requirements)
- State v. T.C., 172 W. Va. 47, 303 S.E.2d 685 (W. Va. 1983) (procedural safeguards and court approval required for dispositional agreements in abuse-and-neglect proceedings)
- In re Edward B., 210 W. Va. 621, 558 S.E.2d 620 (W. Va. 2001) (where child-abuse-and-neglect procedural rules are substantially disregarded, dispositional orders may be vacated and remanded)