State, ex Rel. David Allen B. v. Sommerville

24 Citing cases

  1. State ex rel. State v. Sims

    806 S.E.2d 420 (W. Va. 2017)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that, with regard to Rule 35(b), the 120-day time limit is jurisdictional

    Id. at 132 n.5, 772 S.E.2d at 317 n.5. See also State ex rel. David Allen B. v. Sommerville , 194 W. Va. 86, 89 n.6, 459 S.E.2d 363, 366 n.7 (1995) ("So long as the act sought to be prohibited has not occurred, the relief sought in this case will not be considered to be time barred."); State ex rel. W. Virginia Truck Stops, Inc. v. McHugh , 160 W. Va. 294, 299, 233 S.E.2d 729, 732 (1977) ("The mere expiration of time is not the controlling factor in determining whether the petitioner proceeded in prohibition in a timely manner. There must be an intervening change of position of the respondent induced by the inaction of the petitioner.").

  2. In re Timber M.

    231 W. Va. 44 (W. Va. 2013)   Cited 596 times
    Holding that the mother therein "was required to prove 'by clear and convincing evidence' that she was 'likely to fully participate in the improvement period'" pursuant to West Virginia Code § 49-6-12(b) [now West Virginia Code § 49-4-610(B)].

    Syl. pt. 1, State ex rel. Cash v. Lively, 155 W.Va. 801, 187 S.E.2d 601 (1972).’ Syllabus Point 4, State ex rel. David Allen B. v. Sommerville, 194 W.Va. 86, 459 S.E.2d 363 (1995).” Syl. Pt. 2, In the Interest of Kaitlyn P., 225 W.Va. 123, 690 S.E.2d 131 (2010).

  3. In re Robert W.

    No. 11-0789 (W. Va. May. 10, 2012)

    " '[i]n a contest involving the custody of an infant the welfare of the child is the polar star by which the discretion of the court will be guided.' Syl. pt. 1. State ex rel. Cash v. Lively. 155 W.Va. 801. 187 S.E.2d 601 (1972)." Syllabus Point 4. State ex rel. David Allen B. v. Sommerville. 194 W.Va. 86. 459 S.E.2d 363 (1995). In this case. the majority ignores existing law by relegating it to a footnote instead of sending a clear and strong message that an individual's silence during an abuse and neglect proceeding can be used as affirmative evidence of that individual's culpability.

  4. In re L.W.

    245 W. Va. 703 (W. Va. 2021)   Cited 5 times

    Syl. Pt. 3, in part, In re Katie S. , 198 W.Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (1996) ; see also syl. pt. 2, In the Interest of Kaitlyn P. , 225 W. Va. 123, 690 S.E.2d 131 (2010) (" ‘ "In a contest involving the custody of an infant the welfare of the child is the polar star by which the discretion of the court will be guided." Syl. pt. 1, State ex rel. Cash v. Lively , 155 W.Va. 801, 187 S.E.2d 601 (1972).’ Syllabus Point 4, State ex rel. David Allen B. v. Sommerville , 194 W.Va. 86, 459 S.E.2d 363 (1995)."). To that end,

  5. Corey D. v. Travis R.

    858 S.E.2d 857 (W. Va. 2021)   Cited 1 times
    Finding a de facto termination of biological father's parental rights violated the statutory directive of West Virginia Code § 48-24-103, which required court to declare him the father

    Syl. pt. 1, State ex rel. Cash v. Lively , 155 W.Va. 801, 187 S.E.2d 601 (1972)." Syl. Pt. 4, State ex rel. David Allen B. v. Sommerville , 194 W.Va. 86, 459 S.E.2d 363 (1995). IV. Conclusion

  6. Stacey J. v. Henry A.

    842 S.E.2d 703 (W. Va. 2020)   Cited 2 times
    In Stacey J., 243 W. Va. at 156, 842 S.E.2d at 709, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia held that, under the old version of West Virginia Code § 48-9-403(d) (2021), regardless of which subsection was used concerning whether or not the relocating parent was exercising a majority of custodial responsibility, the parenting plan had to be "modified in accordance with the child's best interest."

    Syl. pt. 1, State ex rel. Cash v. Lively , 155 W.Va. 801, 187 S.E.2d 601 (1972)." Syllabus Point 4, State ex rel. David Allen B. v. Sommerville , 194 W.Va. 86, 459 S.E.2d 363 (1995).Syl.

  7. In re N.R.

    242 W. Va. 581 (W. Va. 2019)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding circuit court abused its discretion when imposing a section 5 disposition instead of terminating parental rights when there had not been a full acknowledgement of the violence, danger and harm to the children by either parent; "in order to remedy the abuse and/or neglect problem, the problem must first be acknowledged. Failure to acknowledge the existence of the problem, i.e., the truth of the basic allegation pertaining to the alleged abuse and neglect or the perpetrator of said abuse and neglect, results in making the problem untreatable"

    " Syl. pt. 1, State ex rel. Cash v. Lively , 155 W.Va. 801, 187 S.E.2d 601 (1972).’ Syllabus Point 4, State ex rel. David Allen B. v. Sommerville , 194 W.Va. 86, 459 S.E.2d 363 (1995)." Syl. Pt. 2, In re Kaitlyn P. , 225 W.Va. 123, 690 S.E.2d 131 (2010).

  8. Hall v. Hall

    No. 17-0452 (W. Va. May. 11, 2018)

    Syl. pt. 1, State ex rel. Cash v. Lively, 155 W.Va. 801, 187 S.E.2d 601 (1972).' Syllabus Point 4, State ex rel. David Allen B. v. Sommerville, 194 W.Va. 86, 459 S.E.2d 363 (1995)."). See Id. at 462-63, 686 S.E.2d at 602-03, Syl. Pt. 2 ("A circuit court terminating a parent's parental rights pursuant to W.Va. Code, § 49-6-5(a)(6), must ordinarily require that the terminated parent continue paying child support for the child, pursuant to the Guidelines for Child Support Awards found in W.Va. Code, § 48-13-101, et seq. [2001].

  9. Hall v. Hall

    818 S.E.2d 838 (W. Va. 2018)   Cited 2 times

    Syl. pt. 1, State ex rel. Cash v. Lively , 155 W.Va. 801, 187 S.E.2d 601 (1972).' Syllabus Point 4, State ex rel. David Allen B. v. Sommerville , 194 W.Va. 86, 459 S.E.2d 363 (1995).").See Id . at 462-63, 686 S.E.2d at 602-03, Syl. Pt. 2 ("A circuit court terminating a parent's parental rights pursuant to W.Va. Code , § 49-6-5(a)(6), must ordinarily require that the terminated parent continue paying child support for the child, pursuant to the Guidelines for Child Support Awards found in W.Va. Code , § 48-13-101, et seq. [2001].

  10. In re S.W.

    233 W. Va. 91 (W. Va. 2014)   Cited 43 times
    Reversing circuit court’s decision that child be reunited with father when "overwhelming evidence supported the termination of his parental rights" stating that "[t]his Court has consistently articulated and adhered to the statutorily-mandated standard for the termination of parental rights. West Virginia Code § 49-6-5 authorizes the termination of parental rights ‘[u]pon a finding that there is no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of neglect or abuse can be substantially corrected in the near future and, when necessary for the welfare of the child.’ " (footnote added)

    Syl. Pt. 1, State ex rel. Cash v. Lively, 155 W.Va. 801, 187 S.E.2d 601 (1972). Syl. Pt. 4, State ex rel. David Allen B. v. Sommerville, 194 W.Va. 86, 459 S.E.2d 363 (1995). As noted above, the DHHR was required to file a petition seeking termination of parental rights in this case pursuant to West Virginia Code § 49–6–5b.