James B. v. Kristin R.

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA
FILED
October 24, 2025
JAMES B.,
ASHLEY N. DEEM, CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
Petitioner Below, Petitioner INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF WEST VIRGINIA

v.) No. 25-ICA-172 (Fam. Ct. Kanawha Cnty. Case No. FC-20-2017-D-616)

KRISTIN R.,
Respondent Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner James B. (“Father”)1 appeals the Family Court of Kanawha County’s
March 31, 2025, contempt order holding him in contempt for violating the parties’
parenting plan and awarding attorney’s fees to Respondent Kristin R. (“Mother”). Mother
responded in support of the family court’s decision.2 Father filed a reply.

This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to West Virginia Code § 51-
11-4 (2024). After considering the parties’ arguments, the record on appeal, and the
applicable law, this Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For
these reasons, a memorandum decision affirming the family court’s order is appropriate
under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

By way of background, Father and Mother were never married but share one child,
born in 2014. The parties have operated under the same mediated parenting plan since July
2017, wherein Mother is the designated legal custodian during odd years and Father in even
years. Pursuant to the parenting plan, Mother was to have the child on New Year’s Day
during odd years. Regarding dispute resolution, the parenting plan stated that, upon written
request, the parties shall attempt to settle a dispute through mediation prior to any court
action.

Events leading to this appeal began when Father scheduled a vacation with the child
that extended into New Year’s Day of 2025. On March 3, 2025, Mother filed a petition for
contempt alleging that Father’s vacation interfered with her parenting time. The first
hearing on Mother’s petition was held on March 6, 2025, but because Father had not been

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
Father is self-represented. Mother is represented by Tim C. Carrico, Esq.
1
served and requested time to seek counsel, it was continued to March 20, 2025. Neither
party asked the family court to enforce the mediation provision in their parenting plan.

At the hearing on March 20, 2025, Father testified that for several years Mother
allowed him to keep the child through New Years Day and that he asked Mother for the
extra day again in 2025. Mother testified that she rejected his request and invoked strict
compliance with the 2017 parenting plan. Additionally, the record reflects that Mother’s
counsel sent Father a letter dated December 4, 2024, reminding him that his vacation time
would not trump Mother’s holiday time and informing him that Mother would file a
contempt petition if his vacation extended into her New Year’s Day. Father confirmed
receipt of the letter during the hearing. Father further testified that he responded to the letter
by requesting that the parties engage in mediation and alleged that neither Mother nor her
attorney acted on his request. The family court entered its final order on March 31, 2025,
finding Father in direct contempt of the 2017 parenting plan. The court found that Father
received notice of Mother’s rejection nearly thirty days before the date in dispute and that
his conduct was willful and contumacious. Additionally, the court found that Father filed
extensive pleadings, leading the court to believe that he acted with a degree of intimidation.
As such, the court then ordered one day of make-up parenting time for Mother and ordered
Father to pay reasonable attorney’s fees in connection with the contempt case. It is from
the March 31, 2025, final contempt order that Father now appeals.

For these matters, we apply the following standard of review.

When a final order of a family court is appealed to the Intermediate Court of
Appeals of West Virginia, the Intermediate Court of Appeals shall review the
findings of fact made by the family court for clear error, and the family
court’s application of law to the facts for an abuse of discretion. The
Intermediate Court of Appeals shall review questions of law de novo.

Syl. Pt. 2, Christopher P. v. Amanda C., 250 W. Va. 53, 902 S.E.2d 185 (2024); accord W.
Va. Code § 51-2A-14(c) (2005) (specifying standards for appellate court review of family
court orders).

On appeal, Father raises four assignments of error. Because three assignments of
error are similar, they will be consolidated. See generally Tudor’s Biscuit World of Am. v.
Critchley, 229 W. Va. 396, 402, 729 S.E.2d 231, 237 (2012) (stating that “the assignments
of error will be consolidated and discussed accordingly”).3

3
Father’s four assignments of error are as follows: (1) the family court erred when
it intentionally failed to adhere to West Virginia Code § 48-9-501; (2) the family court
erred when it failed to adhere to West Virginia Code § 48-9-208 and West Virginia Code
§ 48-9-201 for parental dispute resolution; (3) the family court erred when it failed to
recognize the provisions of West Virginia Code § 48-9-208; and (4) the family court erred
2
In his first three assignments of error, Father asserts that the family court
erroneously failed to order the parties to mediation as directed in their 2017 parenting plan.
In support of his argument, Father cites West Virginia Code § 48-9-201 (2001), § 48-9-208
(2022), and § 48-9-501 (2001), which address various parenting plan issues. We disagree.
The record reflects that Father did not submit a motion to the family court, either orally or
in writing, requesting enforcement of the mediation provision. During the March 6, 2025,
hearing, Father requested a continuance because he was not properly served and needed
additional time to seek counsel. During the March 20, 2025, hearing, Father testified that
he asked Mother to engage in mediation, but he failed to request or to move for mediation
in response to Mother’s contempt petition. Because the issue was not preserved for appeal
during the family court proceeding, we decline to address it now. See Noble v. W. Va. Dep’t
of Motor Vehicles, 223 W. Va. 818, 821, 679 S.E.2d 650, 653 (2009) (citations and
quotations omitted) (“Our general rule is that nonjurisdictional questions . . . raised for the
first time on appeal, will not be considered.”); PITA, LLC v. Segal, 249 W. Va. 26, 40, 894
S.E.2d 379, 393 (Ct. App. 2023) (noting that as a general rule, an appellate court will not
consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal).

In his fourth assignment of error, Father contends that the family court erred by
failing to adhere to Rule 21(c) of the West Virginia Rules of Practice and Procedure for
Family Court when it scheduled the hearing only five days from the day Father was served.4
Father argues on appeal that Mother filed her petition for contempt on March 3, 2024, and
the family court scheduled the hearing for March 20, 2025, which was only seventeen days
later, when he was supposed to have thirty days to respond. Father’s argument lacks merit.
Our review of the hearing shows that the family court asked Father if he needed additional
time, and Father replied that he was ready to proceed pro se, thereby waiving the additional
time to which he was entitled. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the family court’s
decision to move forward with the hearing was erroneous or an abuse of discretion.5

Accordingly, we affirm the family court’s March 31, 2025, order.

when it failed to adhere to Rule 21(c) of the Rules of Practice and Procedure for Family
Court.
4
Rule 21(c) states as follows:

Except for good cause shown and placed on the record, a final hearing shall
not be conducted prior to expiration of the time in which the respondent is
required to serve an answer. A final hearing must take place within 220 days
from the date of the filing of the initial pleading. The Court has the discretion
to limit the duration of final hearings.
5
Father raised an additional assignment of error, but it was later withdrawn.
3
Affirmed.

ISSUED: October 24, 2025

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Judge Charles O. Lorensen
Judge S. Ryan White

Judge Daniel W. Greear, not participating

4