Background
Tyler J. and Emilie C. are the unmarried biological parents of twin children born in 2022. The parents ended their long-term relationship in 2024. In May 2025, Father filed a petition seeking a 50-50 custodial allocation under a 2-2-3 parenting schedule (two days with one parent, two days with the other, three days with one parent, repeating). Father testified he had been following this schedule with overnight stays since November 2023.
Mother disputed Father’s account, testifying that Father did not actually exercise overnight parenting time until May 2025. She provided evidence that she had been the children’s primary overnight caregiver and medical provider, attending to all their healthcare needs, while Father attended fewer than five of over forty Birth-to-Three program appointments. Father works five days per week for more than forty hours weekly in an on-call capacity and indicated he would place the children in daycare to accommodate his schedule. Mother, by contrast, works from home and personally cares for the children.
At a July 24, 2025 hearing, the Family Court of Kanawha County rejected Father’s request for 50-50 custody. On August 11, 2025, the family court entered a final order adopting a modified 2-2-3 schedule in which Father would have the children only from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on his two designated weekdays (no overnight custody), but would retain overnight custody every other weekend from Friday 9:00 p.m. until Monday 9:00 a.m. The court also ordered Father to pay child support.
West Virginia Code § 48-9-102a establishes a rebuttable presumption that 50-50 custodial allocation is in the child’s best interest. The presumption may be rebutted when limiting factors exist under § 48-9-209. The family court found that a 50-50 plan would be “impractical” due to the parents’ and children’s daily schedules—a limiting factor identified in § 48-9-209(f)(5)(C). The court also found that Mother provides greater “stability and predictability” for the children, thereby successfully rebutting the 50-50 presumption.
On appeal, Father argued the family court failed to provide adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law, claiming the court made only conclusory statements without explaining the specific daily schedules or how the modified schedule maximizes each parent’s time with the children. The appellate court disagreed. The court found that the family court’s identification of a specific limiting factor—impracticability due to scheduling conflicts—constituted sufficient findings under the statute. The court noted that the record contained Father’s own testimony about his on-call work schedule and Mother’s testimony that Father had not exercised equal overnight parenting before litigation.
The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed, observing that the resulting parenting plan is “quite nearly a 50-50 plan” and that Father failed to cite the record to demonstrate error. The court emphasized that when a party appeals, they must provide specific citations to the record; mere conclusory objections do not satisfy appellate standards.