L.S. v. O.F., 17-0069

Magistrate court entered an emergency domestic violence protective order (DVPO) against petitioner L.S. on November 28, 2016.
Family court held a hearing on December 5, 2016, and entered a DVPO against L.S.
L.S. appealed the family court's DVPO to the Randolph County circuit court.
At the circuit hearing, L.S. testified he received notice of the family-court hearing but arrived late because he mistakenly believed the hearing time was different; he therefore missed the family-court proceeding and could not dispute the allegations there.
The circuit court denied L.S.'s appeal on December 21, 2016, finding no error in the family court's ruling; the West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the denial.
The appellate record contains little factual detail about the underlying allegations; the appeal focused on whether L.S. was denied procedural due process by not receiving a new hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether L.S. was denied procedural due process when the family court conducted the DVPO hearing in his absence	L.S.: He was denied a meaningful opportunity to be heard and the family court should have conducted a new hearing so he could be present	Respondent/guardian: L.S. received notice and had the opportunity to appear; his late arrival was his own mistake and courts are not required to wait or contact him	Court: Affirmed — no procedural due process violation; petitioner had notice and offered no authority requiring the court to delay or contact him

Walker v. W.Va. Ethics Comm'n, 201 W.Va. 108, 429 S.E.2d 167 (1997) (articulates two-prong deferential standard of review: abuse of discretion for ultimate disposition and clearly erroneous for factual findings)
In re J.S., 233 W.Va. 394, 758 S.E.2d 747 (2014) (procedural due process requires an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner)