Background
Caitlin H. and Patrick M., who were never married, share a six-year-old child. After their separation, the Family Court of Pocahontas County entered a temporary order granting them equal custody on alternating weeks. Caitlin later petitioned to relocate with the child from Pocahontas County to the Richmond-area community of Henrico, Virginia, where her fiancé—whom she subsequently married—had employment. She also cited improved housing and support from her husband’s family.
Following an evidentiary hearing, the family court found that the relocation had a legitimate purpose but that Caitlin failed to prove there was no reasonable alternative that would be less disruptive to the child and more consistent with the child’s best interests. The court emphasized the limited evidence that comparable work for her husband, a union millwright, was unavailable nearer Pocahontas County or that the move would increase household income. After a best-interest analysis, it designated Patrick as the primary custodial parent and granted Caitlin regular custodial time.
The Court’s Holding
The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the family court’s September 17, 2025, order. It held that the family court neither clearly erred nor abused its discretion in finding that Caitlin had failed to carry her statutory burden under West Virginia Code § 48-9-403(d). Establishing a legitimate purpose for relocation did not, by itself, establish that relocating the child was reasonable; Caitlin also had to prove the absence of a reasonable, less disruptive alternative serving the child’s best interests.
The court rejected Caitlin’s argument that the family court overlooked evidence concerning employment opportunities. Her appeal effectively asked the appellate court to reweigh the evidence and revisit credibility findings, functions reserved for the family court as fact-finder. The court also noted that Caitlin did not challenge the family court’s best-interest analysis or its modification of the parenting plan awarding Patrick primary custody.
Key Takeaways
- A legitimate purpose for moving does not alone satisfy West Virginia’s statutory requirements for relocating with a child.
- The relocating parent must prove that no reasonable alternative would be less disruptive and better aligned with the child’s best interests.
- An appellate court will not reweigh testimony or disturb credibility determinations merely because a party favors a different view of the evidence.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the evidentiary burden facing a parent who seeks to relocate with a child. General claims about employment, housing, or family support may be insufficient without evidence showing why the relocation’s purpose cannot reasonably be achieved closer to the other parent.
It also underscores the importance of preserving and specifically challenging every adverse ruling on appeal. Because Caitlin challenged only the finding concerning relocation alternatives—not the best-interest analysis or revised parenting plan—the appellate court confined its review accordingly.