Background
The parties have one child, born in 2011. A June 2024 agreed parenting plan made Mother the child’s primary residential parent and gave Father alternating-weekend parenting time, with specified summer, holiday, transportation, and exchange arrangements.
Mother later sought to modify the plan, asserting that the child—then nearly fourteen—was mature enough to state a custodial preference. After an in-camera interview and a hearing, the family court found that the child wanted to continue seeing Father but was uncomfortable around Father’s wife. The court retained Father’s schedule while allowing the child to choose whether visits would occur at Father’s home or the paternal grandparents’ home through September 1, 2026. It also allowed the stepmother’s presence at holiday and birthday gatherings only when a crowd was present.
The Court’s Holding
The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the family court did not clearly err or abuse its discretion in accommodating the child’s reasonable and firm preference under West Virginia Code § 48-9-402. The modification preserved Father’s parenting time while giving the child discretion over the visit location, addressing the child’s discomfort with the stepmother.
The court rejected Mother’s remaining arguments. The alleged finding that Mother coached the child was not included in the written order; challenges concerning Father’s financial disclosures, the hearing-record nondisclosure agreement, and claimed judicial bias were not properly preserved or were outside the court’s authority; and Mother showed no prejudice from the approximately thirty-day delay in entry of the final order. The written order, rather than any conflicting oral statements, controlled.
Key Takeaways
- A mature child’s reasonable and firm preference may support modification of a parenting plan when it serves the child’s best interests.
- A court may accommodate a child’s concern about a stepparent without eliminating the parent’s scheduled parenting time.
- Appellate relief generally requires a preserved issue and a showing of prejudice.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the latitude West Virginia family courts have to tailor parenting arrangements around a mature child’s expressed preferences. It also confirms that a child’s preference is not necessarily an all-or-nothing choice between contact and no contact with a parent.