CHARLESTON – The state Intermediate Court of Appeals recently issued another memorandum decision critical of a Kanawha Family Court judge for how she handled a contempt order in a child custody dispute.
In the May 1 decision, the ICA affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded the case back to Judge LeraVanMeter.
The father in the underlying case claimed VanMeter wrongly held him in contempt and gave him no chance to purge.
VanMeter
| Courtesy photo
Jackson E. and Olga E. are divorced and share four children. Jackson was given primary custody of the two oldest children, and the mother was given primary custody of the two youngest. In an 2021 order, Jackson E. was ordered to enroll M.E. (now age 18) and C.E. (now age 16) in after-school tutoring and/or summer school if they received below a C-average in any class, keep them from working if they received below a C-average in any class and take them to various therapy sessions.
Olga E. filed a contempt petition against Jackson E. in late 2021 or early 2022 claiming both M.E. and C.E. failed classes and had missed therapy sessions. She also said C.E. had a job.
In a February 10, 2022, order, VanMeter found Jackson E. in contempt and ordered him to either file incorrigibility petitions against M.E. and C.E. in circuit court or secure youth services for them through the Department of Health and Human Resources. She also ordered him to post a $5,000 surety bond for future compliance with court orders.
Six months later, Olga filed a second contempt petition saying C.E. was failing classes and not receiving tutoring and that neither child was attending school regularly or attending weekly therapy sessions.
After an October 2022 hearing, VanMeter entered an order November 4, 2022, finding Jackson E. in contempt. The same day, she also entered a separate order releasing the $5,000 bond to Olga E. and ordering Jackson E. to post an additional $7,500 bond to ensure future compliance with court orders.
Jackson E. appealed that order to the ICA, saying VanMeter was wrong on four fronts.
Jackson E. said VanMeter erred when she made findings of fact and ruling that were outside the scope of the petition but then failed to include those findings and rulings in the written order. The ICA disagreed, saying VanMeter simply was engaging in conversation with the parties, adding those talks did not include findings of fact or rulings.
He also said VanMeter was wrong to find him in contempt for C.E.’s school absences when evidence showed he had been trying to correct C.E.’s behavior. The ICA again disagreed, saying the father failed to follow court instructions regarding C.E. and failed to make any effort to secure youth services for the children through the DHHR. It says he also failed to obtain tutoring for C.E.
Jackson E. also says VanMeter wrongly found him in contempt for M.E.’s school absence because the child had reached the age of majority when the contempt petition was filed. The ICA again disagreed, saying M.E. turned 18 almost two months after the mother filed the petition.
And Jackson E. also says VanMeter erred by ordering him to pay a $7,500 cash bond as surety for a future contempt finding and failing to direct him on how to purge the contempt charge. On that matter, the ICA agreed with the father.
“For contempt matters that do not involve domestic violence protective orders, a family court judge may enforce compliance with their orders by using remedial or coercive sanctions designed to compensate a complainant for losses sustained and to coerce obedience for the benefit of the complainant,” the ICA decision states. “Sanctions must give the contemnor an opportunity to purge himself or herself. Further, in selecting sanctions, the court must use the least possible power adequate to the end proposed.”
State code says such a bond may not be a personal recognizance bond and shall be in an amount that does not exceed the ability of the violator to post.
The ICA says VanMeter should have held Jackson E. in contempt and given him a chance to purge that charge. If he failed to purge the contempt, then VanMeter could have ordered Jackson E. to pay the $7,500 to Olga E., according to the ICA.
The ICA says VanMeter used a domestic violence code section that didn't apply because it was a contempt petition from a custody modification. The way VanMeter did it, the ICA says “the cash bond could potentially sit untouched in perpetuity if no contempt is committed in the future.”
The ICA remanded the case back to VanMeter to enter an order for the immediate return of the $7,500 bond to Jackson E.
In recent months, the ICA has issued five other memorandum decisions critical of VanMeter, condemning her at least twice for her behavior in court.
In a June 15 decision, the court affirmed a September 2022 order by Judge Lera VanMeter regarding parental rights but mentioned concern about VanMeter’s in camera – or private – interview procedures in the matter.
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-283