Julie M. v. Michael M.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the circuit court’s denial of Julie M.’s appeal from a family court order finding her relocation from West Virginia to Florida unreasonable. The court addressed relocation, custodial responsibility, the presumption of reasonableness under West Virginia Code § 48-9-403, and the inadequacy of the appellate record and briefing. The court concluded that the family court’s finding was dispositive and that no abuse of discretion or prejudicial error had been shown.

Holdings

1. A purported 50/50 physical-custody arrangement does not necessarily establish that neither parent exercises a significant majority of custodial responsibility; custodial responsibility includes more than providing shelter for overnight visits.
2. The family court did not clearly err in finding that Julie's proposed relocation to Florida was unreasonable because substantially similar employment could have been obtained much closer to the children's established community.
3. Any error by the family court in withholding or analyzing the relocation presumption did not affect the outcome because the court independently found that the proposed relocation was unreasonable.
4. The Court could disregard Julie's factual arguments because the appendix lacked the family court hearing transcript and her brief did not provide the required specific citations to the record supporting her claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the lower courts properly determined the parties' relative custodial responsibility for purposes of applying the statutory presumption that a proposed relocation is reasonable.
2. Whether the family court failed to consider all relevant best-interest factors in evaluating the proposed relocation and potential modification of the parenting plan.
3. Whether the finding that Julie's relocation to Florida was unreasonable was clearly erroneous and whether the circuit court abused its discretion in refusing to disturb the family court's order.
4. Whether the incomplete appellate record and Julie's failure to provide specific record citations supported disregarding her factual arguments under West Virginia Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(c)(7).

Disposition

affirmed