Ford v. Ford, 15628
| Decision Date | 14 March 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 15628,15628 |
| Citation | 303 S.E.2d 253,172 W.Va. 25 |
| Parties | Joy Lee FORD (Talerico) v. John Michael FORD, et al., Raymond D. Swiger, et al. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Syl. pt. 1, Leach v. Bright, 165 W.Va. 636, 270 S.E.2d 793 (1980).
McNeer, Highland & McMunn and John Lewis Marks, Jr., Clarksburg, for appellants.
Daniel L. McCarthy, Clarksburg, for appellee.
The appellants, Raymond and Georgia Ann Swiger, appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Harrison County which gave the custody of their infant granddaughter, Michelle Ford, to the appellee, Joy Lee Ford Talerico, the natural mother. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the circuit court.
When the appellee and John Michael Ford were divorced in September of 1976, the court awarded custody of three year old Jamie Ford to the appellee. The divorce decree made no mention of Michelle Ford, who was eight months old at the time. At the time of Michelle's birth, the appellee and the two children were residing with the appellants who are the appellee's father and step-mother. The three continued to reside there until February of 1977 when the appellee left the children with their grandparents and took up residence with her paramour, Michael Talerico. The appellee and Mr. Talerico were subsequently married in March of 1978.
The children continued to reside with the appellants until August of 1978 when the circuit court, upon a petition for change of custody filed by John Michael Ford and a counter-petition filed by the appellee, awarded custody of Jamie Ford to the appellee. In the same order the court awarded custody of Michelle to the appellants subject to broad and liberal visitation rights in the natural mother and father. In January of 1980, the appellee petitioned the circuit court to modify its previous order and award her permanent custody of Michelle. By order entered May 15, 1980, the court denied the petition for change of custody but expanded the appellee's visitation rights.
In 1981 the appellee again petitioned the circuit court to modify the custody order. In August of 1981, a hearing was held on that petition. The transcript of that hearing reveals that Michelle Ford had been in the actual physical custody of the appellants since her birth in December, 1975. The parties concede that there was no agreement, oral or written, as to whether the child's residence with the appellants was to be permanent or temporary. The appellee testified that her parents told her to "adjust herself" to Mr. Talerico before taking the children. The appellants testified that this conversation never took place and that they had no idea how long Michelle and Jamie were going to be living with them when the appellee left.
Mrs. Swiger testified that the appellee took no interest in Michelle for the first two years and seven months of her life until she petitioned for the custody change. The appellants introduced evidence from expert witnesses that a change in custody would not be in Michelle's best interests. There was no evidence that either the grandparents or the appellee were unfit to care for Michelle. On March 30, 1982, the trial court awarded custody of Michelle to her natural mother, the appellee. The grandparents appeal that ruling.
The law in this State is that "the fit natural parent's right to custody of his or her child is paramount to that of any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simmons v. Comer
...Robinson, 145 W.Va. 685, 116 S.E.2d 691 (1960)." Syl. pt. 1, Leach v. Bright, W.Va. , 270 S.E.2d 793 (1980).' Syllabus, Ford v. Ford, 172 W.Va. 25, 303 S.E.2d 253 (1983)." Syllabus Point 1, In re Custody of Cottrill, 176 W.Va. 529, 346 S.E.2d 47 3. In cases where equitable estoppel was used......
-
Guardianship of Williams, Matter of
...App.1991); Paquette v. Paquette, 146 Vt. 83, 499 A.2d 23 (1985); Bailes v. Sours, 231 Va. 96, 340 S.E.2d 824 (1986); Ford v. Ford, 172 W.Va. 25, 303 S.E.2d 253 (1983); In re Kosmicki, 468 P.2d 818 Additional discussion on this issue may be found in several leading secondary authorities. 67A......
-
G.Y. v. S.W. (In re L.Y.)
...when in the custody of its parent.’ " (quoting Judd v. Van Horn , 195 Va. 988, 81 S.E.2d 432, 436 (1954) )); Ford v. Ford , 172 W.Va. 25, 303 S.E.2d 253, 255 (1983) (per curiam) ("The law in this State is that ‘the fit natural parent's right to custody of his or her child is paramount to th......
-
Snyder v. Scheerer
...145 W.Va. 685, 116 S.E.2d 691 (1960).' Syl. pt. 1, Leach v. Bright, 165 W.Va. 636, 270 S.E.2d 793 (1980)." Syllabus, Ford v. Ford, 172 W.Va. 25, 303 S.E.2d 253 (1983). 2. " 'When a parent, by agreement or otherwise, has transferred, relinquished or surrendered the custody of his or her chil......