Background
David K. and Tawnya C. share a child born in 2022. After Father sought a visitation schedule in December 2024, the family court began a gradual reintroduction process involving supervised visits and frequent drug screening. Over several hearings, the court adjusted Father’s parenting time and supervision requirements while considering his substance-abuse treatment history and Mother’s concerns that he was “nodding off” during visits.
At the final hearing, the family court took judicial notice of a domestic violence protective order filed against Father by his parents. Mother’s expert testified that Father’s drug-screen results showed buprenorphine levels falling to zero and later increasing, which was consistent with continued sublocade or buprenorphine use. The family court found that the 50-50 presumption had been rebutted and suspended Father’s visitation based on his history of domestic violence and substance-abuse issues.
The Court’s Holding
The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the family court’s December 15, 2025 order. It held that Father failed to establish clear error in the family court’s factual findings or an abuse of discretion in its decision to suspend visitation. The appellate court declined to reweigh the testimony or disturb the family court’s decision to credit Mother’s expert over Father.
The court found no record support for Father’s allegations that the family court, Mother, her attorney, and her expert committed perjury or submitted forged or false documents. It also declined to consider Father’s claims concerning glucuronide-metabolite testing, alleged tampering with drug-screen results, and the characterization of his substance use because he did not show that he raised or preserved those issues in family court. Although Father’s appellate brief lacked adequate legal authority and record citations, the court reviewed his arguments to the extent possible.
Key Takeaways
- An appellate court will not reweigh evidence or second-guess a family court’s witness-credibility determinations absent clear error.
- Unsupported allegations of perjury, forgery, or false evidence do not establish reversible error.
- Self-represented litigants must preserve issues below and support appellate arguments with legal authority and specific record citations.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the substantial deference West Virginia appellate courts give family courts on factual and credibility questions, particularly when visitation decisions turn on competing testimony about substance use and child safety.
It also underscores that pro se status does not excuse inadequate briefing or failure to preserve an issue. Even when an appellate court attempts to review deficient arguments, relief still requires a supported showing of clear error, abuse of discretion, or legal error.