Ian C. v. Amy C.

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

FILED
IAN C., May 22, 2023
Petitioner Below, Petitioner EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF WEST VIRGINIA
vs.) No. 23-ICA-12 (Fam. Ct. Cabell Cnty. No. 21-D-149)

AMY C.,
Respondent Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Ian C.1 appeals the Order Dismissing Petition to Modify entered by the
Family Court of Cabell County on December 8, 2022. Ian C. asserts that the family court
erroneously dismissed his petition for modification; however, he raised no appealable
issues in his notice of appeal or his brief. Respondent Amy C. filed a timely response.2 Ian
C. did not file a reply brief.

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 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.

Ian C. and Amy C. are the parents of two minor children, B.C., age thirteen, and
K.C., age five. The parties were divorced but conceived their youngest child during a brief
reconciliation. Within several months leading up to the family court’s involvement, Ian C.
began having severe mental health issues, which lead Amy C. to file a petition to modify
the parenting plan for the oldest child, and a petition for the allocation of custody for the
youngest child. Ian C.’s behavior became more concerning, and Amy C. filed an
emergency ex parte petition seeking immediate custody of the children.

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
Ian C. is self-represented; Amy C. is represented by Sarah E. Dixon, Esq.

1
The custody modification and allocation petitions were set for a hearing on June 29,
2021, and the custody order was entered on July 19, 2021. Pursuant to that order, Amy C.
was given sole physical and legal custody of both children, Ian C. was ordered to have no
contact with Amy C. or the children until further order of the court, and to submit to a
parental fitness evaluation by a licensed psychological group prior to pursuing a
modification of the parenting plan in the future.

In May 2022, Ian C. submitted to a parental evaluation by Hudson Forensic
Psychology. The evaluation concluded that Ian C. had severe and untreated psychiatric
symptoms and that visits with his children should not take place. The parental evaluation
also provided a list of requirements for Ian C. to complete in order to seek parenting time,
which included the following: (1) a psychiatric consultation, (2) weekly psychotherapy, (3)
outpatient substance abuse treatment, (4) random drug and alcohol screening for six
months, (5) obtain habitable housing and maintain it for at least six months, (6) maintain
interpersonal relationships for at least six months, (7) maintain gainful employment, (8)
comply with intervention therapy, and (9) provide his medical professionals with a copy of
his parental fitness evaluation.

On October 28, 2022, Ian C. filed a petition to modify the parenting plan, stating
that he had done everything the court asked him to do and that he had also started attending
counseling. On November 15, 2022, Amy C. filed a motion to dismiss Ian C.’s petition for
modification and a response. The court scheduled a status hearing for December 5, 2022,
to inquire about Ian C.’s progress. At the hearing, Ian C. stated he had not and would not
comply with the requirement for a psychiatric consultation.

The final order was entered on December 8, 2022, and the family court found that
Ian C. had attended only six psychotherapy sessions between October 14, 2022, and
November 25, 2022. The court determined that his mere attendance was not sufficient, and
that Ian C. appeared to be in denial regarding his mental health issues. Accordingly,
because Ian C. failed to follow the court’s directives, and because the parental fitness
evaluation recommended no visits, his petition to modify the parenting plan was denied. It
is from that order that Ian C. now appeals.

Our standard of review in this matter is as follows:

“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).

2
Amanda C. v. Christopher P., No. 22-ICA-2, __ W. Va. __, __, __ S.E.2d __, __, 2022 WL
17098574, at *3 (Ct. App. Nov. 18, 2022); accord W. Va. Code § 51-2A-14(c) (2005)
(specifying standards for appellate court review of family court order).

On appeal, Ian C. raises various points of contention about events which took place
years ago and are not relevant to this matter. Ian C. raises no appealable issues from the
family court’s December 8, 2022, order, and his brief consists merely of his disagreement
with the proceedings below, coupled with unsubstantiated allegations against Amy C.
Further, Ian C. fails to cite any statutory authority or precedent to support his arguments as
required by Rule 10 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Further, Rule 10(c)(7) of the West
Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure requires, in relevant part, that “[t]he argument must
contain appropriate and specific citations to the record on appeal, including citations that
pinpoint when and how the issues in the assignments of error were presented to the lower
tribunal.” Here, Ian C. cites to no portion of the record in support of his claims. As such,
we find no basis in law to warrant relief.

Accordingly, we affirm the family court’s December 8, 2022, order.

Affirmed.

ISSUED: May 22, 2023

CONCURRED IN BY:

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

3