In Re: The Marriage/Children of Roger M., Jr. v. Jennilea M.

Summary

The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Roger M., Jr.’s motion to restore his custodial rights, concluding that restoration was not in the children’s best interests given the parents’ substance-abuse histories and incomplete compliance with court-ordered requirements. The court reversed the requirement that indigent Father pay half of the guardian ad litem’s fees and remanded for consideration of whether a non-indigent party or the Supreme Court should pay those fees.

Holdings

1. The family court did not abuse its discretion in denying Father's motion to restore custodial rights because restoration was not in the children's best interests.
2. The family court erred in requiring Father, whom the Court found to qualify as indigent, to pay one-half of the children's GAL fees; the fee allocation had to be reconsidered under West Virginia Trial Court Rule 21.05.
3. The Court did not reach the timeliness of Father's conflict-of-interest challenge because the alleged conflict did not form the basis for the custody ruling and the family court had an independent sufficient basis for denying restoration of custody.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the family court abused its discretion by denying Father's motion to restore his custodial rights.
2. Whether the family court erred by requiring an indigent Father to pay one-half of the children's guardian ad litem fees.
3. Whether the alleged conflict of interest involving the guardian ad litem required reversal.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded