Background
In 2016, the Family Court of Greenbrier County entered a domestic violence protective order against M.R. following a hearing at which he admitted the facts of an incident described by R.R., his former wife. The order was to expire in March 2017. In October 2017, however, the family court amended the order without another hearing, adding the parties’ children as protected persons and extending the order until further court order.
R.R. petitioned in June 2025 to terminate the protective order. Following a September hearing attended by both parties, the family court granted the request. M.R., who opposed termination, appealed. The circuit court affirmed, and M.R. appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeals, arguing that the lower courts failed to address due-process defects in the 2017 amendment.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s order upholding termination of the protective order. M.R. did not identify a specific factual or legal error in the family court’s termination ruling or the circuit court’s affirmance, and he did not supply a record adequate to review the arguments made below, including transcripts of the relevant 2025 hearings.
The court held that M.R.’s generalized challenge to the legality of the 2017 amended order did not warrant relief in this appeal. The order under review concerned termination of the DVPO, not its original entry or 2017 extension; the record did not show that M.R. timely appealed the amendment. The court also declined M.R.’s request to expunge the order because he cited no authority supporting that relief or record evidence that he sought record purging under West Virginia Code § 48-27-511.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant must identify particular errors and provide record citations sufficient for appellate review.
- An appeal from a later termination order cannot be used to challenge an earlier protective-order amendment that was not timely appealed.
- A request to expunge or purge domestic-violence records requires supporting legal authority and an adequate record.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that even potentially significant concerns about an earlier order’s entry do not excuse appellate briefing and record deficiencies. Litigants seeking to challenge a DVPO’s issuance or amendment must use the appropriate, timely procedure rather than raising that challenge in an appeal from a subsequent termination order.