Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA September 2002 Term

FILED
November 27, 2002
RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

RELEASED
November 27, 2002

No. 30411

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

REBECCA LYNN C., Plaintiff Below, Appellant,

V.

MICHAEL JOSEPH B., Defendant Below, Appellee.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Ohio County
Honorable Ronald E. Wilson, Judge
Civil Action No. 88-C-734
AFFIRMED


Submitted: November 6, 2002 Filed: November 27, 2002 David C. White, Esq. Law Offices of Neiswonger and White Moundsville, West Virginia Attorney for the Appellant Christopher P. Riley, Esq. Bailey, Riley, Buch & Harman, L.C. Wheeling, West Virginia Attorney for the Appellee

CHIEF JUSTICE DAVIS delivered the Opinion of the Court. JUSTICES STARCHER AND ALBRIGHT dissent and reserve the right to file dissenting opinions.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT


1.

"A motion to vacate a judgment made pursuant to Rule 60(b), W. Va. R. C.

P., is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and the court's ruling on such motion will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a showing of an abuse of such discretion." Syllabus point 5, Toler v. Shelton, 157 W. Va. 778, 204 S.E.2d 85 (1974).

2.

"Appeal of the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion brings to consideration for

review only the order of denial itself and not the substance supporting the underlying judgment nor the final judgment order." Syllabus point 3,Toler v. Shelton, 157 W.Va.778,204 S.E.2d 85 (1974).

3.

A final order terminating parental rights completely severs the

parent-child relationship,and deprives the court of the authority to impose a post-termination award of child support on the parent whose rights have been terminated. However, termination of parental rights does not deprive a court of jurisdiction to enforce payment of child support that accrued before the obligor's parental rights were terminated.

i

Davis, Chief Justice: The appellant and plaintiff below, Rebecca Lynn C.1 [hereinafter referred to as "Ms.C."],appeals from an order entered July 2,2001,by the Circuit Court of Ohio County. In that order,the circuit court upheld a prior agreement between Ms.C. and Michael Joseph B. [hereinafter referred to as "Mr. B."], the appellee herein and defendant below, whereby Mr. B. agreed to make a lump sum child support payment to Ms. C. in exchange for his relinquishment of all parental rights in and to the parties' child. On appeal to this Court, Ms. C. contends that a change of circumstances involving the child's health necessitates a modification of the parties' prior agreement and an award of additional child support. Upon a review of the parties' briefs, the record submitted for appellate consideration, and the parties' arguments, we affirm the decision of the Circuit Court of Ohio County.

Mr.B.moved this Court to denominate the parties by their initials in light of the sensitive nature of the facts involved in this proceeding. We granted the motion. Therefore, we adhere to the practice we follow in similar cases wherein it is necessary to protect the privacy of the parties involved. See, e.g., In re Emily B., 208 W. Va. 325, 329 n.1, 540 S.E.2d 542, 546 n.1 (2000); In re Michael Ray T., 206 W. Va. 434, 437 n.1, 525 S.E.2d 315, 318 n.1 (1999); State ex rel. Diva P. v. Kaufman, 200 W. Va. 555, 559 n.2, 490 S.E.2d 642, 646 n.2 (1997). 1

1

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY During its consideration of this matter, the circuit court found the following facts. Ms. C. and Mr. B. had a romantic relationship, which ended shortly before Ms. C. discovered that she was pregnant with the parties' child. Prior to the child's birth, Ms. C. discussed with her attorney an arrangement whereby Mr. B. would pay a set amount of child support and relinquish his parental rights to the child. Although Ms. C.'s counsel subsequently communicated this proposal to counsel for Mr. B., the birth of the parties' child on May 27, 1988, foreclosed further discussions. Thereafter, on October 12, 1988, Ms. C. instituted a paternity action seeking to establish that Mr.B.was the father of Ms.C.'s child and to obtain an award of child support.

Following hearings before the family law master2 and the receipt of his recommended decision,the circuit court entered orders on January 17, 1990, and April 11, 1990, determining Mr. B. to be the father of Ms. C.'s child; awarding custody to Ms. C.; extending visitation rights to Mr. B.; imposing joint liability on Ms. C. and Mr. B. for the child's medical expenses; and granting child support to Ms. C. By subsequent order entered

The West Virginia Legislature has abolished the office of family law master and replaced it with the judicial office of family court judge. See W.Va.Code

Download 30411.pdf

West Virginia Law