Keith C. v. Alan B., 20-0059

Petitioners Keith and Karen C. (married) sought a domestic violence protective order after a physical altercation on Aug. 17, 2019, in which Keith alleges serious, permanent injuries caused by respondent Alan B., who lives next door.
Alan B. is the former step-nephew-in-law of petitioners (petitioners were formerly step aunt/uncle by virtue of a prior marriage between Keith’s brother and respondent’s mother-in-law).
Petitioners obtained an emergency protective order (magistrate court) on Oct. 10, 2019, and a final hearing was scheduled.
Respondent moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing petitioners and respondent are not "family or household members" under W. Va. Code § 48-27-204, so the family court lacked jurisdiction; the family court terminated the emergency order.
The circuit court affirmed the family court on Dec. 27, 2019. The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the statutory definition unambiguous and not covering "step aunt-in-law" or "step uncle-in-law."

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether petitioners and respondent are "family or household members" under W. Va. Code § 48-27-204	Petitioners: they were former step aunt/uncle relations and fall within § 48-27-204(7)(M)/(N) or via the cross-relationship rule in § 48-27-204(8)	Respondent: the statute does not include the terms "step aunt-in-law" or "step uncle-in-law," so the relationship is not covered	Court: statute is clear and unambiguous; those specific "step ...-in-law" terms are not included, so parties are not family/household members and family court lacked jurisdiction
Whether subdivision (8) (relationships to a family/household member) brings petitioners and respondent within the definition via third-party relationships	Petitioners: chain through Keith’s brother and respondent’s former mother-in-law satisfies (8)	Respondent: unrelated third-party relationships are irrelevant to whether the parties themselves are family/household members in the alleged incident	Court: rejected the chain argument as legally and factually irrelevant—domestic violence requires the abusive act occur between the persons who are family/household members

Carr v. Hancock, 216 W. Va. 474, 607 S.E.2d 803 (W. Va. 2004) (sets standard of review for family-to-circuit-court appeals)
Smith v. State Workmen’s Comp. Comm’r, 159 W. Va. 108, 219 S.E.2d 361 (W. Va. 1975) (primary objective of statutory construction is legislative intent)
State v. General Daniel Morgan Post No. 548, Veterans of Foreign Wars, 144 W. Va. 137, 107 S.E.2d 353 (W. Va. 1959) (apply clear and unambiguous statutes as written)
Christopher J. v. Ames, 241 W. Va. 822, 828 S.E.2d 884 (W. Va. 2019) (use of express inclusion/exclusion principles in statutory interpretation)
Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16 (U.S. 1983) (expressio unius canon—express inclusion implies exclusion)
Manchin v. Dunfee, 174 W. Va. 532, 327 S.E.2d 710 (W. Va. 1984) (recognizes expressio unius maxim in statutory interpretation)
Banker v. Banker, 196 W. Va. 535, 474 S.E.2d 465 (W. Va. 1996) (courts must not add to statutes what legislature omitted)
State ex rel. Frazier v. Meadows, 193 W. Va. 20, 454 S.E.2d 65 (W. Va. 1994) (courts must apply statutory language as written)