842 S.E.2d 703
W. Va.2020Background:
- Parties divorced in 2017; they share two children and had an agreed 50/50 physical custody schedule under their parenting plan.
- Mother (Stacey) lost her CT-technician job after workplace misconduct and accepted employment in Myrtle Beach, SC; she moved and filed to relocate the children to live with her there.
- Family Court denied the relocation, designated Father (Henry) primary residential parent, terminated his child support obligation and imposed a support obligation on Mother; Family Court relied in part on Mother’s credibility and available closer jobs.
- Guardian ad litem (GAL) recommended permitting relocation, testified the children have a close bond with Mother and would benefit from the move; the Family Court largely ignored that recommendation and barred GAL testimony about the children’s custodial preferences.
- Supreme Court of Appeals reversed and remanded: it held the Family Court failed to make adequate findings on the children’s best interests and must assess caretaking functions to determine which subsection of W. Va. Code § 48-9-403(d) applies.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Family Court conducted an adequate best-interest analysis before reallocating primary custody | Stacey: court ignored GAL report, children’s bonds and preferences; best-interest factors not sufficiently considered | Henry: court legitimately prioritized preserving Father–child relationship and minimizing impairment | Court: Reversed — Family Court’s best-interest analysis was incomplete and supported by insufficient findings; remand for full analysis considering statutory factors |
| Whether Mother’s relocation was legitimate/good faith and whether her misconduct may be considered | Stacey: move was for employment and legitimate; fault is not a statutory factor | Henry: Mother’s misconduct undercuts legitimacy and closer jobs existed that would be less disruptive | Court: Credibility findings are for the factfinder and may inform legitimacy, but the Family Court must base any denial on a full best-interest and statutory analysis; remand for reconsideration |
| Which subsection of W. Va. Code § 48-9-403(d) applies (70% custodial-responsibility threshold) | Stacey: Family Court erred by relying on a 70% threshold and effectively denying relocation for that reason | Henry: Parties effectively had 50/50 physical time so other subsections apply | Court: Family Court must assess caretaking functions (per Nicole L.) to calculate custodial responsibility before selecting the applicable subsection; remand for that assessment |
| Whether GAL’s recommendations and children’s preferences were improperly excluded or ignored | Stacey: GAL recommended relocation and children expressed a desire to live with Mother; preferences and GAL evidence should be considered | Henry: Family Court limited preference evidence due to children’s ages and questioned weight of GAL testimony | Court: Family Court erred by discounting/ignoring GAL and refusing preference testimony; child preference (if maturity warrants) and GAL findings must be considered on remand |
| Whether reassigning primary residential parent and altering support was justified | Stacey: reallocation not shown to materially promote children’s welfare | Henry: designation favored maintaining contact and stability with Father | Court: Reallocation is vacated because it rested on an inadequate best-interest analysis; remand for proper findings before any custody/support change is ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Carr v. Hancock, 216 W.Va. 474, 607 S.E.2d 803 (W. Va. 2004) (standard of appellate review for family-court orders)
- Nicole L. v. Steven W., 241 W.Va. 466, 825 S.E.2d 794 (W. Va. 2019) (custodial responsibility includes caretaking functions; relocation-presumption framework)
- Storrie v. Simmons, 225 W.Va. 317, 693 S.E.2d 70 (W. Va. 2010) (guidance on parental relocation analysis)
- In re Kaitlyn P., 225 W.Va. 123, 690 S.E.2d 131 (W. Va. 2010) (child welfare is the paramount consideration in custody disputes)
- Cloud v. Cloud, 161 W.Va. 45, 239 S.E.2d 669 (W. Va. 1977) (change of custody requires evidence that change will materially promote the child's welfare)
- Mulugeta v. Misailidis, 239 W.Va. 404, 801 S.E.2d 282 (W. Va. 2017) (credibility determinations are for the factfinder and are afforded deference)