Background
Jared M. and Molly A., who were never married, share a child born in 2012. Their 2014 agreed parenting plan named the mother the primary residential parent, gave the father specified weekday and alternating-weekend parenting time, and required him to pay child support.
The father later sought to modify custody and support. In an earlier appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeals held that changes in the parents’ employment, the child’s improved medical condition, and the child’s age amounted to a substantial change in circumstances. On remand, the family court found that the mother had not rebutted the statutory presumption favoring a 50-50 custodial allocation and modified the parenting plan accordingly. It declined to address child support because no petition to modify support was pending.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Appeals summarily affirmed the Intermediate Court of Appeals’ decision upholding the family court’s equal-custody modification. The Court found no reversible error in the family court’s determination that the mother failed to rebut the presumption for a 50-50 custodial allocation under West Virginia Code § 48-9-206.
The Court also rejected the father’s challenge to the family court’s refusal to modify child support on remand. Because no petition to modify child support was before the family court, it did not err by declining to decide that issue. The Court likewise found no reversible error in the father’s claim that the family court failed to consider all of the evidence.
Key Takeaways
- A court may adopt a 50-50 custodial allocation when the statutory presumption is not rebutted.
- A family court need not modify child support when no support-modification petition is pending.
- The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the ICA after finding no reversible error in the custody ruling or the handling of support.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that custody and child-support issues remain procedurally distinct, even when a custody modification changes the parties’ parenting-time allocation. A parent seeking a revised support obligation must properly place that issue before the family court.