CHARLESTON – The state Intermediate Court of Appeals has issued another memorandum decision critical of a Kanawha Family Court judge for how she handles interviews with children in a case.
In a June 15 decision, the court affirmed a September 2022 order by Judge Lera VanMeter regarding parental rights.
The judges agreed with VanMeter’s ruling regarding the father’s parenting time, which is the reason he appealed the order. But the ICA did mention concern about VanMeter’s in camera – or private – interview procedures in the matter.
VanMeter
| Courtesy photo
“While it does not change the outcome here, to avoid confusion or give rise to this assignment of error in the future, we encourage family courts to strive to adhere to the procedure outlines in Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings concerning notice, attorney participation and recording,” the ICA decision states.
The father appealed VanMeter’s September order, saying her restriction on his parenting time is tantamount to the termination of his parental rights. The father said only a circuit court can address that matter through an abuse and neglect proceeding.
The parents in the case shared three children, two of whom are minors. In 2020, the wife filed a domestic violence petition. It was granted, and she moved to North Carolina with the children. The husband filed for divorce the following month.
At the end of 2020, the mother filed a motion requesting VanMeter to conduct in camera interviews with the children to allow them to express their preferences regarding visitation with the father. That motion was granted, and those private interviews were supposed to take place during the final hearing on January 21, 2021.
“The family court (VanMeter), without prior notice to (the father), arrange to interview the children on January 4, 2021,” the decision states. “(The father) filed an objection to the interviews because he did not receive notice ...”
The objection was denied, and the final divorce order was entered in February 2021. The following month, the father appealed that order to the circuit court, saying VanMeter failed to follow Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings.
Rules 8 and 9 govern the taking of testimony of children. The father said because he didn’t receive notice of the interviews, his attorney didn’t have a chance to file objections or prepare questions, pursuant to Rule 8(B).
The circuit court agreed and sent the case back to VanMeter for compliance with the rules for in camera interviews of minors. VanMeter then entered an order giving parties 15 days to submit questions or topics for a possible second in camera interview if any questions or topics hadn’t already been addressed in the first interview. She also entered an amended final divorce order ruling the release of copies of the private interviews to the parties would be detrimental to the children and could cause irreparable harm.
VanMeter decided not to conduct the second interview, and the father did not appeal the amended final divorce order.
In October 2021, the father filed a motion for emergency hearing, saying he had been in therapy and had not had parenting time in about 18 months. The mother filed a response, and a hearing took place in January 2022. VanMeter’s subsequent order required one visit between the father and the children to be supervised by Saar Psychological Group to see if more visitation was appropriate.
In April 2022 after another hearing, VanMeter entered an order stating Saar Psychological Group determined that forcing the children to see the father would cause irreparable harm. The children had expressed their desire for no visitation during the private interviews with VanMeter, and she ruled it was not in the children’s best interests to require contact with the father. But she said they could contact him if they chose to do so.
The father appealed that order to the circuit court, which affirmed VanMeter’s ruling. The father appealed that circuit court ruling to the ICA. He said the circuit court erred by affirming VanMeter’s decision to terminate all of his parental visitation and that he couldn’t rebut anything said in the in camera interviews because he wasn’t told what was said then by the children.
The ICA said VanMeter determined the father had committed domestic violence and that “the children disclosed very sensitive information about their father and witnessing years of domestic abuse with him being the aggressor.”
Earlier this spring, the ICA issued four other memorandum decisions critical of VanMeter, condemning her at least twice for her behavior in court.
In addition to screaming at litigants at least twice, court documents show VanMeter ordered a woman jailed until her ex-husband took care of a title issue at the Department of Motor Vehicles, had a man pay a $7,500 cash bond in case he later was found to be in contempt and denied a woman’s petition to modify custody without a hearing or submitting evidence.
A native of Williamson, VanMeter was elected to the bench in 2016. She previously was a sole practitioner. She graduated from the West Virginia University College of Law in 1994.
Intermediate Court of Appeals case number 22-ICA-165
