Background
After their 2021 divorce, Katti D. (Mother) had primary custodial responsibility for the parties’ four children, while Anthony H. (Father) exercised alternating-weekend parenting time, shared holidays, and summer time. In May 2025, Mother sought permission to move the children from Harrison County, West Virginia, to Rolla, Missouri, where she and her new husband had bought a home. She said the move would place her near her in-laws, who could provide support and childcare. Father sought equal custodial allocation.
The family court denied Mother temporary relocation relief, but Mother later moved to Missouri. Following hearings that included in-camera testimony from the two oldest children, the court concluded that Mother had not established a legitimate statutory purpose for relocation. Because Mother testified she would move even without permission to relocate the children, the court made Father the primary custodial parent and gave Mother most school-break parenting time.
The Court’s Holding
The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the family court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Mother failed to meet her threshold burden under West Virginia Code § 48-9-403(d). The court upheld the finding that Mother’s in-laws were not “immediate family members” for the statute’s legitimate-purpose provision and that her husband was not pursuing a significant employment opportunity in Rolla or another location supporting the proposed move.
The appellate court also upheld the family court’s conclusion that proposed childcare help from Mother’s in-laws was not a sufficiently established legitimate purpose as to these school-aged children. Once Mother failed to establish a legitimate relocation purpose, the family court could modify the parenting plan based on the children’s best interests and the move’s effects. The record supported its finding that moving the children would substantially impair their relationship with Father, disrupt their established school, sports, friendships, and one child’s therapy, and make equal custodial allocation impracticable.
Key Takeaways
- A parent seeking relocation with children bears the burden to prove a legitimate, good-faith purpose, the children’s best interests, and no less-disruptive reasonable alternative.
- A family court may find that relocation to be near a new spouse’s parents or for generalized support does not satisfy the statutory legitimate-purpose requirement on the evidence presented.
- If the relocating parent fails to meet that burden and plans to move anyway, the court may reallocate primary custody in the children’s best interests.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the substantial deference West Virginia appellate courts give family-court factfinding and custody determinations. A relocating parent cannot rely solely on a preference for family support or a spouse’s geographically remote work arrangements; the proposed move must satisfy the statutory relocation requirements.
It also confirms that a court may give limited weight to children’s stated residential preferences when it finds they do not fully appreciate the consequences of relocation.