CHARLESTON — Several amendments were adopted during the House of Delegates' debate on the bill creating an intermediate appellate court before it was advanced to third reading.
During the March 5 House session, Del. Lisa Zukoff (D-Marshall) introduced an amendment to add child welfare cases into the intermediate court.
"Child welfare cases need to be able to be appealed to the intermediate court," Zukoff said. "This amendment adds language to specifically include those cases, including abuse and neglect, foster care and juvenile justice."
Zukoff's amendment would allow the intermediate court to review all aspects of cases involving cases of children and guardians.
"It doesn’t make sense not to allow child abuse and neglect proceedings to be allowed in this court if were going to have an intermediate court,' Zukoff said.
Del. John Shott (R-Mercer) disagreed, saying that if the intermediate court took up other cases, it gave the Supreme Court more time to work on abuse and neglect cases.
"This involves a policy question," Shott said. The idea is that these cases need to be disposed of as quickly as possible to bring stability and finality to the family unit (is why they need to be in the Supreme Court). Allowing them in the intermediate court brings into the equation some delay. They can take them up as quickly, but then losing party can appeal to the Supreme Court, which would result in some delay."
Zukoff's amendment was adopted, with 51 voting yes and 48 voting no.
Del. Chad Lovejoy (D-Cabell) also introduced an amendment that would bring the bill back to the original language involving where the court would be held.
"The bill divides the state into two districts — north and south," Lovejoy said. "My amendment addresses where proceedings will be held. My argument is that the court should be required to conduct business in all of our communities instead of just these two cities. If we’re going to have this court, let's have it in all communities."
Del. Brandon Steele (R-Raleigh) disagreed with the amendment, saying he felt it was important that the courts had set locations in Clarksburg and Beckley.
Del. Isaac Sponaugle (D-Pendleton) agreed with the amendment.
"The business court already operates like this and has for 10 years," Sponaugle said. "This is a good amendment."
The amendment was adopted with 51 yes votes and 48 no votes.
S. Marshall Wilson (I-Berkeley) asked for a reconsideration of Zukoff’s amendment, but that was voted down 45-54.
Steele introduced an amendment to make it so the attorney general would represent counsel in criminal cases and some civil cases before the court.
"The attorney general already appears as counsel for these cases in other courts," Steele said. "This amendment includes the intermediate court in that. It just makes it consistent with what’s already in the code."
Del. Joe Canestraro (D-Marshall) disagreed and felt that prosecutors should continue with the cases.
"These cases become personal to us," Canestraro said. "I think the amendment should read that the prosecutor should appear as counsel, not the attorney general."
Canestraro urged a no vote on the amendment. Del. Nathan Brown (D-Mingo) agreed with Canestraro.
The amendment was adopted 54-45.
With the passage of the bill, the new court would hear most civil appeals from circuit courts instead of them going straight to the Supreme Court. It would have two districts with three judges on each half.
The intermediate court would hear appeals in civil cases, conservatorship and guardianship cases, and rulings from family court, administrative agencies and the Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. If the bill passes, it would also eliminate the Workers’ Compensation Office of Judges.
The Supreme Court would decide which appeals it would consider and which it would reject, sending them to the new court.