In re: R.T., a minor

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

FILED
IN RE: R.T., a minor, February 2, 2023
EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK
No. 22-ICA-157 (Fam. Ct. Wood Cnty. No. FC-54-2018-FIG-39) INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF WEST VIRGINIA

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Ethel G. 1 appeals the Family Court of Wood County’s September 6, 2022,
Order Revoking Appointment of Minor Guardian. Respondent Victoria T. timely filed a
response in support of the family court’s ruling. 2 Ethel G. did not file a reply.

This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to West Virginia Code § 51-
11-4 (2022). The Court has considered the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. The
facts and legal arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not
be significantly aided by oral argument. This case satisfies the “limited circumstances”
requirement of Rule 21(d) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure and is appropriate for
a memorandum decision rather than an opinion. For the reasons expressed below, this case
is remanded to the family court for entry of an order with sufficient findings of fact and
conclusions of law to facilitate a meaningful appellate review.

Victoria T. is the mother of R.T., a minor child. Ethel G. is the paternal grandmother
of R.T. Ethel G. has been the legal guardian of R.T. since 2018. On May 9, 2022, Victoria
T. filed her pro se Petition for Revocation, Termination, or Modification of Appointment
of Guardian which sought to terminate Ethel G.’s guardianship of R.T. On June 9, 2022,
Victoria T., through counsel, filed an Amended Petition to Terminate Guardianship and
Motion for Child Interview. On September 5, 2022, Ethel G., by counsel, filed her
Guardian’s Motion to Appoint Guardian Ad Litem.

A hearing on Victoria T.’s petition was held on September 6, 2022. Following the
hearing, the family court issued the Order Revoking Appointment of Minor Guardian. The
family court’s findings and conclusions are five sentences long in total, and provide only
the following:

1
To protect the confidentiality of the juveniles involved in this case, we refer to the
parties’ last name by the first initial. See, e.g., W. Va. R. App. P. 40(e); State v. Edward
Charles L., 183 W. Va. 641, 645 n. 1, 398 S.E.2d 123, 127 n.1 (1990).
2
Petitioner is represented by Thomas B. Karr, Esq. Respondent is represented by
William B. Summers, Esq.

1
[R.T.] is the subject of this proceeding and is a minor under West Virginia
law, being under the age of 18 years.

Venue is proper in this Court regarding the minor child named in this action
as she is a current state resident of this county.

The petition filed on May 9, 2022 and amended on June 9, 2022, seeks a
revocation of a guardianship appointment appointment [sic].

Giving precedence to the welfare and best interest of the minor(s) and the
importance of competent and fit guardian, based upon the evidence
presented, and, to the extent applicable, further taking into account the
priority for consideration for appointment to be afforded the parents of the
minor(s), the Court hereby finds and concludes that the minor child, [R.T.],
should be placed in the care of her mother, [Victoria T.], effective September
6, 2022, and the guardianship over said minor child should end effective
September 6, 2022. The father, [Rickie T.], shall co-parent the minor child
with her mother, [Victoria T.], who shall be the primary custodial parent.

Generally, we review a family court appeal pursuant to the standards set forth by
the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia in the Syllabus of Carr v. Hancock, 216
W. Va. 474, 607 S.E.2d 803 (2004). However, such standards contemplate sufficient
findings of fact and conclusions of law to facilitate a meaningful review.

The Supreme Court of Appeals has said that to properly review an order of a family
court,

“[t]he order must be sufficient to indicate the factual and legal basis for the
[family court]’s ultimate conclusion so as to facilitate a meaningful review of
the issues presented.” Province v. Province, 196 W. Va. 473, 483, 473 S.E.2d
894, 904 (1996); see also Nestor v. Bruce Hardwood Flooring, L.P., 206 W. Va.
453, 456, 525 S.E.2d 334, 337 (1999) (“[O]ur task as an appellate court is to
determine whether the circuit court’s reasons for its order are supported by the
record.”). “Where the lower tribunals fail to meet this standard—i.e. making
only general, conclusory or inexact findings—we must vacate the judgment and
remand the case for further findings and development.” Province, 196 W. Va. at
483, 473 S.E.2d at 904.

Collisi v. Collisi, 231 W. Va. 359, 364, 745 S.E.2d 250, 255 (2013).

Here, the family court’s order does not contain sufficient findings of fact and
conclusions of law to indicate the factual and legal basis for the family court’s ultimate
conclusion to revoke the guardianship. Pursuant to West Virginia Code § 44-10-3(j)

2
(2013), the burden of proof was on Victoria T. to show by a preponderance of the evidence
that there was a material change of circumstances and that the revocation or termination of
the guardianship of R.T. was in R.T.’s best interest. The family court’s order did not contain
any findings as to a material change in circumstances, nor was there any analysis of the
best interests of R.T.

For the foregoing reasons, we remand to the family court with directions to issue an
order with sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to facilitate a meaningful
appellate review. Specifically, the family court is directed to make specific findings
regarding whether there has been a material change of circumstances and to conduct an
analysis of whether revocation of the guardianship is in the best interests of R.T. If it is not
possible to do so based upon the existing record, the family court may conduct such further
proceedings as it deems necessary. To avoid undue disruption of the child, the Order
Revoking Appointment of Minor Guardian is hereby considered to be a temporary order,
which shall remain in effect pending entry of a final order by the family court consistent
with this decision. The Clerk is directed to issue the mandate contemporaneously with this
memorandum decision.

Remanded with Directions.

ISSUED: February 2, 2023

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Judge Daniel W. Greear
Judge Thomas E. Scarr
Judge Charles O. Lorensen

3