Michael S. v. Angela S.

CourtIntermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia
DecidedMarch 25, 2024
Docket23-ica-114
StatusPublished

This text of Michael S. v. Angela S. (Michael S. v. Angela S.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Michael S. v. Angela S., (W. Va. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA FILED March 25, 2024 MICHAEL S., C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK Respondent Below, Petitioner INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

v.) No. 23-ICA-114 (Fam. Ct. of Putnam Cnty. No. FC-40-2006-D-137)

ANGELA S., Petitioner Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Michael S.1 (“Father”) appeals the Family Court of Putnam County’s January 30, 2023, order that denied his motion to terminate his child support obligation for his disabled adult daughter, who is the recipient of Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). Respondent Angela S. (“Mother”) and the Bureau for Child Support Enforcement (“BCSE”) filed responses.2 Father did not file a reply.

This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to West Virginia Code § 51- 11-4 (2022). After considering the parties’ arguments, the record on appeal, and the applicable law, this Court finds that there is error in the family court’s decision but no substantial question of law. For the reasons set forth below, the family court’s decision is vacated, and this case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

The parties were married in 1990 and on July 27, 2002, a set of triplets were born of the marriage. The parties were divorced by a final divorce order entered on June 12, 2007. Father was initially ordered to pay monthly child support in the amount of $837.84, effective July 1, 2014. By order entered on October 16, 2018, child support was modified to $786.00 per month, effective October 1, 2018. That order stated that child support would terminate once the children graduated high school.

1 Consistent with our practice in cases with sensitive facts, we use initials where necessary to protect the identities of those involved in this case. See In re K.H., 235 W. Va. 254, 256 n.1, 773 S.E.2d 20, 22 n.1 (2015). 2 Michael S. is represented by Jon D. Hoover, Esq. Angela S. is represented by Maggie J. Kuhl, Esq. The BCSE is represented by Allison C. Ojeda, Esq.

1 On June 25, 2020, approximately one month before the triplets’ eighteenth birthday and high school graduation, Mother filed a petition for modification to extend child support for one of the triplets, L.S., based upon the child’s disability. The triplets, including L.S., graduated high school in July 2020 and the BCSE terminated child support on July 31, 2020, as the obligation had ended and was paid in full.

On May 25, 2021, the family court held a hearing on Mother’s petition for modification to extend child support for L.S. The court found that L.S. had a pending application for SSI benefits. The court further found that L.S. was physically disabled and incapable of supporting herself, and, as such, entered a temporary order on June 24, 2021, setting child support at $456.07 per month, effective August 1, 2020. The order further stated that child support would terminate on the first of the month following any SSI award.

On February 7, 2022, the family court held a hearing where it found that L.S.’s SSI claim was denied, and an appeal of the decision was filed with the Social Security Administration (“SSA”). Father moved the court to end his child support obligation due to L.S. reaching the age of majority. Mother moved the court to continue Father’s child support obligation since L.S. was found disabled. The family court entered its order from the February 7, 2022, hearing on March 21, 2022, which modified Father’s child support obligation from $456.07 to $1,141.00 per month, beginning October 26, 2021. The family court further found that the SSI denial constituted a change in circumstances and required an evidentiary hearing3 to determine whether the parties’ child required continuing support by Father into adulthood.

By letter dated December 6, 2022, L.S. was granted SSI in the monthly amount of $609.34 effective January 2023. She was also awarded backpay in the amount of $14,085.45, but after a reduction of attorney fees, she received $10,564.09 for April 2021 through November 2022.

On December 19, 2022, the family court held a final hearing on Mother’s petition for modification of child support and Father’s motion to end his child support obligation. The BCSE did not attend the hearing but was consulted during a pre-hearing conference with both parties’ counsel and the court. During the pre-hearing conference, counsel for Mother proffered that the SSA had already considered the current child support obligation received by Mother in the amount of $1,141.00 and that the SSA had reduced L.S.’s SSI

3 It does not appear, from the record, that the family court ever held the evidentiary hearing due to L.S.’s subsequent SSI award. In other words, it appears that the court determined L.S. needed continued support because she was subsequently awarded SSI due to a disability.

2 award by one-third because of the child support.4 Mother’s counsel and the court agreed that a child support award would not affect or make L.S. ineligible for SSI. Specifically, the family court found that two-thirds of the child support award would be considered the child’s unearned income for the purpose of SSI benefits. Father’s counsel disagreed and objected to that conclusion. L.S.’s SSI award was included as Mother’s income in the child support formula. Mother was attributed no other income. Child support was awarded to Mother in the amount of $1,015.67 per month, effective January 1, 2023.5 The court entered its final order on January 30, 2023, and this appeal followed.

When reviewing the order of a family court, we apply the following standard of review:

“In reviewing . . . a final order of a family court judge, we review the findings of fact made by the family court judge under the clearly erroneous standard, and the application of law to the facts under an abuse of discretion standard. We review questions of law de novo.” Syl. Pt., [in part,] Carr v. Hancock, 216 W. Va. 474, 607 S.E.2d 803 (2004).

Amanda C. v. Christopher P., 248 W. Va. 130, 133, 887 S.E.2d 255, 258 (Ct. App. 2022); accord W. Va. Code § 51-2A-14(c) (2005) (specifying standards for appellate review of a family court order).

Father asserts a single assignment of error on appeal. He contends that the family court erroneously awarded child support to Mother in direct violation of West Virginia Code § 48-13-603(b) (2001) because the parties’ adult child is a recipient of SSI pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1382. He asserts that because child support is considered unearned income, and could render the child ineligible for disability payments, any amount of child support awarded would terminate her eligibility. Although Father’s assertion is somewhat misplaced, we find error in the family court’s order, nonetheless.

West Virginia permits disabled children to receive support past the age of majority. See Syl. Pt. 10, James G. v. Caserta, 175 W. Va. 406, 332 S.E.2d 872 (1985). However, if the disabled adult child is a recipient of SSI, courts must analyze whether a child support award would cause the adult child to become ineligible for SSI. See W. Va. Code § 48-13- 603(b). Child support must either be terminated or reduced to an amount that would not

4 This pre-hearing conference was not preserved in the record, as it was not recorded by the family court; however, all parties refer to it in their briefs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

James G. v. Caserta
332 S.E.2d 872 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1985)
Casdorph v. Casdorph
460 S.E.2d 736 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1995)
Carr v. Hancock
607 S.E.2d 803 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 2004)
Glasgold v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
558 F. Supp. 129 (E.D. New York, 1982)
In Re K.H.
773 S.E.2d 20 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 2015)
Moreland v. Sullivan
765 F. Supp. 970 (C.D. Illinois, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Michael S. v. Angela S., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-s-v-angela-s-wvactapp-2024.