Jared M. v. Molly A.
21-0253
| W. Va. | Apr 26, 2022Background
- Child E.M., born 2012, had a brain tumor removed and lost her pituitary gland, requiring vigilant hormone replacement medication and attentive caregivers; tumor recurred in 2014 but has not returned since treatment.
- In Sept. 2014 parents agreed to a parenting plan naming mother Molly A. primary residential parent (~70% time); father Jared M. had limited weekly and alternate-weekend time; plan limited non-grandparent caregivers and required caregiver presence while the child was in a parent’s physical custody.
- By 2017–2018 circumstances changed: E.M. aged into school, Molly A. entered full-time employment (including travel), and Jared M.’s job duties became more flexible and localized near E.M.’s school.
- Jared petitioned the family court in Dec. 2017 to modify the parenting plan (seeking more parenting time, child-support adjustments, and revised babysitting rules), alleging substantial changes in circumstances.
- After a multi-day evidentiary hearing, the family court denied the change-in-circumstances modification, made only limited minor adjustments (including a 24-hour babysitter-offer rule), and awarded the mother $5,000 in attorney fees; the circuit court later affirmed.
- The West Virginia Supreme Court reversed: it held the family court clearly erred in finding no substantial change, vacated the attorney-fee award, and remanded for a best-interests analysis and further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jared) | Defendant's Argument (Molly) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a "substantial change in circumstances" occurred under W. Va. Code § 48-9-401(a) | Father: child’s age/medical improvement, mother’s employment, and father’s job flexibility (alone or combined) are unanticipated, substantial changes warranting modification | Mother: employment and other changes were anticipated or not significant enough to justify modification | Court: Reversed — these combined changes were not anticipated by the parenting plan and, on these facts, are a substantial change; family court clearly erred in finding otherwise |
| Whether the original parenting plan "anticipated" the alleged changes | Father: plan is silent on what happens if parents’ work schedules change or child ages into school | Mother: argued the changes were foreseeable and thus not a basis for modification | Court: Held the inquiry asks whether the plan actually provided for the change; here it did not, so changes were not "anticipated" |
| Whether the family court conducted the required best-interests analysis | Father: court failed to evaluate whether modification is necessary for child’s best interests after finding a substantial change | Mother: court concluded minor modifications preserved child’s best interests and modification not warranted | Court: Because a substantial change was found, the court must next analyze and make findings on the child’s best interests; family court erred by not doing so |
| Whether attorney fees awarded to mother were justified | Father: fees were improper because pursuing modification was reasonable given changed circumstances | Mother: sought fees asserting father acted in bad faith and should have known no substantial change existed | Court: Vacated fee award because the family court’s premise (no substantial change) was incorrect; remand required for proper best-interests analysis before any fee decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Carr v. Hancock, 216 W. Va. 474, 607 S.E.2d 803 (2004) (standard of review for family-court orders reviewed by circuit court)
- Skidmore v. Rogers, 229 W. Va. 13, 725 S.E.2d 182 (2011) ("not anticipated" means the parenting plan must actually provide for the change)
- In re R. J. M., 164 W. Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (1980) (children under three require consistent close interaction with committed adults)
- Sally-Mike Properties v. Yokum, 179 W. Va. 48, 365 S.E.2d 246 (1986) (equitable authority to award attorney’s fees when losing party acted in bad faith)