Fenton v. Miller, 19174

Citation182 W.Va. 731,391 S.E.2d 744
Decision Date29 March 1990
Docket NumberNo. 19174,19174
CourtSupreme Court of West Virginia
PartiesCalvin P. FENTON, et al. v. Taunja Willis MILLER, et al.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The formal hearing that this court has required in State ex rel. Department of Human Services v. Huffman, 175 W. Va. 401, 332 S.E.2d 866 (1985), is placed by statute in the West Virginia circuit courts and the family law masters, at such time as a Child Advocate seeks a judgment for back support.

2. The Child Advocate is an advocate for the interests of the State in cases where the State seeks to recoup support from a defaulting parent; however, the Child Advocate is vested with discretion so that when a defaulting parent presents clear and convincing evidence of inability to pay to a Child Advocate, the Child Advocate is not obliged to pursue the matter in circuit court if an unfavorable outcome for the State is not in doubt.

3. Once this Court takes jurisdiction of a matter pending before a circuit court, the circuit court is without jurisdiction to enter further orders in the matter except by specific leave of this Court.

Roger W. Tompkins, Atty. Gen., C. Terry Owen, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Charleston, for Taunja Willis Miller.

Daniel F. Hedges, Charleston, for Calvin P. Fenton.

NEELY, Chief Justice:

Calvin Fenton is a long-suffering, hard working family man who finds himself the subject of efforts by the West Virginia Department of Human Services to collect money that the Department paid to his former wife to support his children.

In the summer of 1977, Patricia Fenton left Calvin Fenton and went to Pennsylvania with another man. Mrs. Fenton left her four children with Mr. Fenton, and he continued to work at his job, arranging for a babysitter when he was working or out-of-town. Mr. Fenton filed for divorce, and in 1978 the Circuit Court of Fayette County awarded the divorce and gave Mr. Fenton custody.

In 1979, however, Patricia Fenton returned to Fayette County, asked for custody, and Mr. Fenton happily sent the children back to her because he was having a hard time caring for them. Mr. Fenton remarried and now has five more children, ages 3, 5, 7, 9, and 10. Furthermore, one of the children from his first marriage has now moved back with him, so he supports a wife and six children on the meager income he earns working for a sign company.

In 1987 the Fayette County Child Advocate office filed a complaint to recoup support (AFDC) money paid by the Department to Patricia Fenton. This case is styled State of West Virginia ex rel. Department of Human Services by Carol T. Lay v. Calvin Fenton. On 4 March 1987, an Order was entered by the Circuit Court of Fayette County upon an order form provided by the Child Advocate, granting judgment in the full amount of AFDC benefits paid, $11,591. An Order was then entered to pay $350 per month to satisfy the judgment, and Mr. Fenton's wages were garnished.

In December 1988, Mr. Fenton successfully petitioned the Circuit Court of Fayette County for a rule to show cause in prohibition on the grounds that he had not been served with process in the original circuit court action brought by the Child Advocate. The Fayette County Circuit Court stayed the enforcement of the judgment for back support until the service of process issue could be resolved at a hearing on the prohibition proceeding scheduled for 2 February 1989. Before the scheduled hearing, however, the Child Advocate resigned, and the position was left vacant. Thus the hearing was postponed indefinitely, and no hearing has ever been held, although a hearing was rescheduled for the Spring of 1989.

Before the hearing on the Fayette County prohibition proceeding could be had in Spring, 1989, however, Mr. Fenton filed a class action in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County seeking to enjoin the West Virginia Department of Human Services from collecting AFDC payments on behalf of the State until the procedures outlined in State ex rel. Department of Human Services v. Huffman, 175 W.Va. 401, 332 S.E.2d 866 (1985), were complied with. The circuit court entered a preliminary injunction, and it is from that circuit court injunction that the Department appeals in the case before us.

I.

The bone of contention between the appellee, Mr. Fenton, represented by the Appalachian Research and Defense Fund, and the Department concerns the obligation on the part of the Child Advocate to determine the ability of a parent on whose behalf AFDC payments have been made to reimburse the State of West Virginia for those payments.

The position of the Department is that the Child Advocate's responsibility is to give notice to the defaulting parent, solicit as much information as possible from the defaulting parent and his employer concerning his income and ability to pay, attempt to achieve a voluntary agreement concerning a repayment schedule, and then, if a voluntary agreement cannot be reached, to bring an enforcement action in the circuit court. The State argues that the Child Advocate essentially represents the State of West Virginia and that the Child Advocate need not concern herself with elaborate hearings and the taking of testimony concerning ability to pay. Rather, the State argues, if a voluntary agreement cannot be reached, it is the circuit court's responsibility to determine ability to pay.

Alternatively, Mr. Fenton maintains that Huffman, supra, implies that the Child Advocate must make some initial determination of the debtor parent's ability to pay before petitioning the circuit court. In this case, Mr. Fenton maintains that he informed responsible officials in the Child Advocate's office of his necessitous circumstances, but the Child Advocate nonetheless proceeded to petition the circuit court for a pro forma order in the entire amount of the AFDC payments to Mrs. Fenton.

In syllabus point 2 of Human Services v. Huffman, supra, we held:

The Department of Human Services receives only those rights to recoupment of benefits paid under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program (AFDC) that an AFDC recipient could assign: the recipient's right to support and maintenance. That right to support and maintenance is dependent upon the ability of the responsible relative to pay, and the determination of ability to pay must be made through an administrative hearing or court proceeding.

As the syllabus point plainly reads, we did not indicate whether the determination of ability to pay should be made by the Department or by the circuit court, but indicated that it could be made at either level. 1

The case before us is, perhaps, not an ideal vehicle for addressing whether the Child Advocate should listen carefully to what indebted parents have to say about their circumstances and their ability to pay. It became apparent at the oral argument of this case that Mr. Fenton did not use great diligence in seeking out opportunities to discuss his support obligation with the Child Advocate, nor did he attempt to work out a voluntary...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • State ex rel. W.Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res. v. Bloom
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • November 17, 2022
    ... ... 370 (1953)." Syl. Pt. 2, Cowie v. Roberts , 173 ... W.Va. 64, 312 S.E.2d 35 (1984) ... Syl. pt. 1, State ex rel. Miller v. Reed , 203 W.Va ... 673, 510 S.E.2d 507 (1998). Accord W.Va. Code § ... 53-1-1 ("The writ of prohibition shall lie as a matter ... preside over the matter unless it receives permission to ... proceed from this Court. See Syl. pt. 3, Fenton ... v. Miller , 182 W.Va. 731, 391 S.E.2d 744 (1990) ... ("Once this Court takes jurisdiction of a matter pending ... before a ... ...
  • State ex rel. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res. v. Bloom
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • November 17, 2022
    ...has the authority to preside over the matter unless it receives permission to proceed from this Court. See Syl. pt. 3, Fenton v. Miller , 182 W. Va. 731, 391 S.E.2d 744 (1990) ("Once this Court takes jurisdiction of a matter pending before a circuit court, the circuit court is without juris......
  • In re N.R.
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • October 2, 2020
    ...takes jurisdiction of a matter pending before a circuit court, the circuit court is without jurisdiction." Syl. Pt. 3, Fenton v. Miller, 182 W. Va. 731, 391 S.E.2d 744 (1990). Therefore, at the time of the filing of petitioners' motion to transfer, this Court continued to have jurisdiction ......
  • In re N.R.
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • September 29, 2020
    ...takes jurisdiction of a matter pending before a circuit court, the circuit court is without jurisdiction." Syl. Pt. 3, Fenton v. Miller, 182 W. Va. 731, 391 S.E.2d 744 (1990). Therefore, at the time of the filing of petitioners' motion to transfer, this Court continued to have jurisdiction ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT