CHARLESTON – The state Intermediate Court of Appeals has issued four recent memorandum decisions critical of a Kanawha Family Court judge, at least condemning her twice for her behavior in court.
In addition to screaming at litigants at least twice, court documents show Kanawha Family Court Lera 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.
In the first decision, the ICA notes concern about VanMeter after reviewing recordings of two 2022 hearings.
VanMeter
| File photo
“The hearing recordings begin immediately with the judge screaming at the parties and chastising their behavior,” the February 2 decision states. “Further, the judge refuses to allow the wife to present any testimony or evidence in her defense, but instead screams over the parties and ‘doesn’t want to hear it’ in regard to any testimony.”
“While the family court judge was undoubtedly irritated and frustrated, and possibly justifiably so, with the actions or inactions of the parties, we remind the court of the ethical duty to treat litigants in the courtroom with respect and dignity, and maintain decorum in the courtroom to ensure parties receive a fair and impartial hearing.”
In the same case, VanMeter found the ex-wife to be in contempt of an earlier court order and issued a capias for her arrest, ordering her to pay the ex-husband $500 in “punitive damages for the husband’s time and aggravation” for the time he spent working to get the title signed over to him for a single-wide trailer and parcel of property.
When the woman turned herself in the next day after learning of the capias, VanMeter ordered her to jail despite having a 4-year-old at home with no one to watch the child who recently had undergone surgery. Later that day, the ex-husband appeared in court to say he was unable to get the title transferred yet, so VanMeter ordered the woman back to jail, saying “she would stay there until the husband was able to get the transfer of the title effectuated.”
The woman also testified that she had missed the contempt hearing because her minor child had surgery in Cincinnati, adding that she tried to get the court date changed but was unable to do so because she was in Cincinnati.
A month later, the ex-husband filed another contempt petition saying the woman had not paid him the $500 punitive damages yet. The woman filed an instant appeal.
In reversing and remanding the decision, the ICA says VanMeter abused her discretion in ordering the woman to pay the $500 in punitive damages, finding reversible error.
“Due process requires that the family court hold a hearing on the matter of contempt and allow the wife to present evidence in her defense,” the ICA decision states. “From said hearing, the family court then must determine whether the wife acted willfully in failing to comply with a court order and determine if the wife has the ability to purge herself of the contempt; and if so, give her reasonable time by which she may purge herself.
“The wife was not afforded the opportunity to present evidence in her defense or purge herself of the contempt.”
In another decision issued February 2, the ICA said VanMeter again “became extremely impatient, expressed irritation and anger, raised her voice and screamed at” a mother in a custody case.
The mother in the case had moved to Alabama and had asked the court to modify the parenting plan after she said the children had reached the age of maturity and “asked to live primarily with her.” She claims VanMeter erroneously denied her petition and reduced her parenting time after failing to give her the opportunity to present evidence or testimony.
During an August 2022 hearing, the father presented a video showing the mother’s boyfriend’s birthday party where gag gifts of an adult nature were given to him. Guests also simulated sexual behavior with the minor children present. After viewing the video, VanMeter agreed the behavior was inappropriate for the children to have witnessed. When the mother tried to explain she was outside at the time and not aware the gifts had been presented to her boyfriend, she says VanMeter refused to allow her to explain or present evidence to defend herself.
In a video recording of the hearing, the mother “attempted to explain the birthday party video, but the judge said, ‘I need you to stop talking! I need you to stop talking! I’m gonna put you out and dismiss your case!’” the decision states. The mother “later tried to explain the video again and the judge stated, ‘I don’t need you to say another word! I might just take away all your parenting rights! …
The mother then “asked if she’s allowed to speak, and the judge stated, ‘No, you are not allowed to speak.’”
VanMeter’s final order found the mother’s home was not appropriate for the children and reduced her parenting time to supervised visits in West Virginia and ordered that telephone calls between the children and the mother be supervised by the father. She appealed that order.
In remanding the case for further proceedings, the ICA judges said it doesn’t have the jurisdiction to grant the mother’s requested recusal of VanMeter.
In a third decision filed February 3, the ICA says VanMeter denied a woman’s petition to modify custody without holding a hearing and without affording her a chance to present evidence.
The decision says VanMeter was “apparently frustrated” by what she called delaying tactics by the mother. The ICA also says VanMeter was “clearly wrong” in finding that “substantial changes in circumstances had not been alleged” and abused her discretion by denying the petition without holding a hearing, taking evidence and making specific findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Among the changes the mother requested were a custody plan modification because the children’s therapist said visits should stop until the father participated in reunification therapy. She says the children also reported a lack of food and water at the father’s home and that both saying they felt unsafe at his home. They also said the father’s girlfriend had driven them while she was intoxicated.
The ICA reversed the decision and remanded the case back to VanMeter, telling her the mother should be given the opportunity to present evidence concerning issues she raised in her petition to modify.
In a fourth decision filed May 1, the ICA says VanMeter erroneously ordered a father to pay a $7,500 cash bond as surety for a future finding of contempt and failing to direct him on how to purge said contempt.
“The family court should have held (the father) in contempt … and provided an opportunity to purge said contempt,” the decision states. “If (the father) then failed to purge the contempt, the family court would have the discretion to order (him) to pay $7,500 to (the mother) as a monetary sanction.
“Because (the father) was held in contempt … the cash bond could potentially sit untouched in perpetuity if no contempt is committed in the future.”
VanMeter also ordered the man to attend weekly therapy for narcissism.
The ICA reversed VanMeter’s imposition of the cash bond, remanding the case back to her with direction to enter an order for immediate return of the $7,500 to the father.
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 numbers 22-ICA-100, 22-ICA-106, 22-ICA-146 and 22-ICA-283