825 S.E.2d 794
W. Va.2019Background
- Mother (Nicole L.) and Father (Steven W.) shared custody of two children under a mediated parenting plan; Mother was primary residential parent. The plan reserved Mother’s right to seek relocation to Kentucky.
- Mother accepted higher-paying employment in Kentucky, had family support there, and moved under a temporary summer parenting plan; Father opposed permanent relocation and challenged notice compliance.
- Family court denied Mother’s relocation petition after an evidentiary hearing, finding she exercised a significant majority of custodial responsibility for the daughter but not the son (based on overnight counts), and questioned the good-faith reasonableness of the move.
- The circuit court affirmed the family court. Mother appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.
- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding the lower courts erred by counting only overnights (not caretaking functions) and by improperly rejecting the relocation as not reasonable in light of a legitimate purpose.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper method to calculate "significant majority" of custodial responsibility | Mother: Courts must consider caretaking functions (WV Code § 48-1-210) not just overnight counts; she exceeded 70% for both children | Father: Legislature didn’t cross-reference caretaking; overnight counting (as used in child-support) is proper | Court held custodial responsibility includes caretaking functions; lower courts erred by relying solely on overnights and should have found Mother exercised a significant majority for both children |
| Whether relocation was "good faith for a legitimate purpose" and "reasonable in light of purpose" under WV Code § 48-9-403(d)(1) | Mother: Move was for legitimate employment and family-support reasons; evidence unrebutted that opportunities doubled income and support network existed | Father: Mother failed to adequately seek comparable local employment; broadened job search in KY suggests lack of good faith | Court held Mother proved a legitimate, good-faith purpose; established a presumption of reasonableness when relocating parent has significant majority and meets statutory criteria; Father failed to rebut presumption |
| Compliance with relocation notice requirements / motion to dismiss | Mother: Notice substantially complied under the facts; temporary order accommodated move | Father: Mother’s notice was deficient; dismissal warranted | Court found substantial compliance and no abuse of discretion in denying dismissal |
| Award of attorney's fees under WV Code § 48-1-305 | Mother: Fees warranted because Father asserted unfounded or vexatious defenses | Father: Defenses were reasonable | Court affirmed family court’s discretion; no abuse in denying fees—Father’s claims were not shown to be unfounded or oppressive |
Key Cases Cited
- Carr v. Hancock, 216 W. Va. 474, 607 S.E.2d 803 (W. Va. 2004) (standard of review for circuit-court review of family-court orders)
- Storrie v. Simmons, 225 W. Va. 317, 693 S.E.2d 70 (W. Va. 2010) (parent exercising significant majority may relocate if move is in good faith for a legitimate purpose)
- Smith v. State Workmen’s Comp. Comm’r, 159 W. Va. 108, 219 S.E.2d 361 (W. Va. 1975) (statutory construction—give effect to Legislature’s intent)
- Beto v. Stewart, 213 W. Va. 355, 582 S.E.2d 802 (W. Va. 2003) (review of family-court discretionary decisions like attorney fees)
- Murthy v. Karpacs-Brown, 237 W. Va. 490, 788 S.E.2d 18 (W. Va. 2016) (discretionary nature of attorney-fee awards in family law)
- State ex rel. Treadway v. McCoy, 189 W. Va. 210, 429 S.E.2d 492 (W. Va. 1993) (preserving sibling relationships is often in children’s best interests)