T.W.J. v. L.S.A.
15-0817
| W. Va. | Oct 6, 2016Background
- Petitioner T.W.J. and respondent L.S.A. had a two‑year romantic relationship; respondent alleged multiple acts of domestic violence (gun fired during an argument, forced entry into car, threats, stalking, planting drugs, nonconsensual videotaping).
- Magistrate court entered an emergency protective order on December 29, 2014; family court held a final hearing on January 21, 2015 and issued a protective order finding respondent credible and that petitioner committed domestic violence.
- Petitioner appealed to the circuit court on January 30, 2015; the protective order expired April 21, 2015; circuit court denied the appeal on May 18, 2015 on the merits.
- Petitioner argued the appeal was not moot and sought reversal, alleging insufficient evidence, questionable timing/motivation, and that he lived far away at times of alleged conduct.
- The Supreme Court of Appeals considered collateral consequences (employment harm) and held the appeal was not moot, but affirmed the circuit court, finding sufficient evidence and no clear error in credibility findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness — whether appeal should be dismissed as moot because protective order expired | T.W.J.: appeal is timely and not moot because collateral consequences (employment as law‑enforcement officer) persist | L.S.A.: (implicitly) protective order expiration does not affect the validity of prior findings; circuit court considered merits | Court: Appeal not moot — collateral consequences and timely appeal justify review; merits considered |
| Sufficiency of evidence / credibility — whether family court erred in finding domestic violence and issuing protective order | T.W.J.: findings rested on insufficient evidence, delayed filing, ongoing sexual/physical contact undermines fear, alibi (was 700+ miles away), no proof of stalking | L.S.A.: presented testimony and evidence (gun discharge, forced entry, threats, stalking, planted drugs, nonconsensual videotaping); testified to fear | Court: Affirmed — family court made adequate factual findings, credibility determinations supported by record; circuit court did not err or abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Carr v. Hancock, 216 W.Va. 474, 607 S.E.2d 803 (2004) (standards of review for circuit court review of family court orders)
- John P.W. ex rel. Adam W. v. Dawn D.O., 214 W.Va. 702, 591 S.E.2d 260 (2003) (review standard and requirement that family court make factual findings and identify statutory basis for domestic violence)
- Israel by Israel v. W. Va. Secondary Sch. Activities Comm’n, 182 W.Va. 454, 388 S.E.2d 480 (1989) (factors for addressing technically moot issues)
- Katherine B.T. v. Jackson, 220 W.Va. 219, 640 S.E.2d 569 (2006) (permitting appellate review of domestic‑violence petitions despite expiration of protective order)