Background
Mohamed A. and Marwa A. divorced in 2017 and agreed to a parenting plan designating Marwa as the primary custodian of their two children. In 2022, Mohamed filed contempt petitions alleging that Marwa withheld the children from visits and alienated them from him. After psychological evaluations and an evidentiary hearing, the family court found that Marwa had disobeyed a court order, withheld parenting time, and alienated the children. It awarded Mohamed sole custody and prohibited Marwa from contacting the children or exercising parenting time for six months.
In June 2023, Marwa petitioned to modify custody and sought reinstatement as the children’s primary custodian. The family court denied her petition without a hearing and later denied reconsideration. The Intermediate Court of Appeals reversed and directed the family court to hold a hearing addressing whether Marwa should receive additional contact or parenting time and whether increased parenting time would serve the children’s best interests. Mohamed appealed that ruling.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia summarily affirmed the Intermediate Court of Appeals. After reviewing the record and the parties’ briefs, the court concluded that the family court should have conducted a hearing on Marwa’s petition for modification.
The decision does not award Marwa custody or parenting time. It leaves those questions for the family court to consider on remand, including whether additional contact or parenting time is appropriate and consistent with the children’s best interests.
Key Takeaways
- A family court should have held a hearing before resolving the mother’s petition to modify custody under the circumstances presented.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the remand for a hearing, not reinstatement of the mother as primary custodian.
- On remand, the family court must consider whether additional contact or parenting time for the mother would serve the children’s best interests.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the importance of an evidentiary hearing when a parent seeks modification after a court-ordered period without contact. Even where prior findings include parental alienation and violations of parenting-time orders, the family court must properly consider a later request for renewed contact or parenting time.
The ruling also illustrates the limited nature of an appellate remand: affirming the right to a hearing does not predetermine the hearing’s outcome or alter the existing custody arrangement by itself.