CHARLESTON – A middle school teacher has filed a petition seeking to stop a Kanawha County Family Court judge from entering an order restricting her contact with her brother’s child even though she is not involved in the case.
Lilah Michael filed her petition September 15 in Kanawha Circuit Court against Judge Lera VanMeter.
On September 11, VanMeter entered an order in a family court matter involving her brother and his wife or ex-wife. That order said Michael shall have no contact with the minor child of that couple, even though he is a student at John Adams Middle School where Michael teaches. The order says Michael shall have no contact with the child during school hours or on school grounds until further order.
VanMeter
| Courtesy photo
VanMeter’s order says “Michael is not privy to said information discussed in the parties’ domestic relations matter.”
According to the complaint, Michael was a nonparty in the underlying family court case. She says her employment is in jeopardy because of the “defective order … devoid of any findings of fact or conclusions of law.”
Michael says the order is defective because it cites no statute or rule to sustain jurisdiction over her, lacks any legal basis to restrain or prohibit Michael’s conduct and lacks any factual basis to sustain its “abnormal relief.”
She says the order must be vacated, adding VanMeter lacked jurisdiction to enter an order pertaining to her as a non-party to the family court case. She is asking Kanawha Circuit Court Judge Stephanie Abraham to issue a writ of prohibition keeping VanMeter from entering or enforcing the September 11 order as well as to vacate and rescind the order as exceeding her jurisdiction.
Attorney Michael Cary, who is representing Michael, declined to comment on the matter.
VanMeter has been the subject of a handful of recent Intermediate Court of Appeals decisions in which she was criticized for how she handled cases.
In one filed just this week, the ICA reversed and remanded a case back to family court after VanMeter erroneously ordered a father to pay eight months of the mother’s attorney fees in the proceedings because the judge “failed to receive accurate evidence regarding (the father’s) income.”
In the same case, the ICA also said the father, who had said he made $80,000 a year on a recent vehicle loan application, testified in court and provided tax returns showing he made significantly less than that. Yet, VanMeter used the $80,000 figure to formulate child support amounts.
“While the family court’s negative reaction to the apparent income misrepresentation made by (the father) during the purchase of a new vehicle is understood, and arguably may reasonably be considered by the family court in evaluating (his) credibility, it cannot be reasonably relied upon as an accurate reflection of his income,” the ICA wrote.
In addition, the ICA notes VanMeter’s order directing the father to pay a $1,000 cash bond to ensure his compliance with the order. Even though it wasn’t objected to in the case, the ICA mentions it because it is related to one of the previous decisions it made about another VanMeter case earlier this year in which it said VanMeter did not have authority to direct a cash bond stemming from a custody matter.
“We are aware that the family court issued its ruling on this matter prior to the issuance of (that decision),” the ICA wrote. “However, the ‘plain error’ doctrine grants appellate courts, in the interest of justice, the authority to notice error to which no objection has been made. …
“Therefore, to the extent that the cash bond is still being held, the family court is directed to release the money to (the father) immediately.”
The three-judge panel sent the case back to VanMeter to determine if deviation from the child support formula is warranted based on accurate income documentation and to enter a new, appropriate child support order. It also orders VanMeter to properly analyze the parties’ finances to determine what attorney fees the father should pay for the mother.
In the other case regarding a cash bond, the ICA criticized VanMeter for how she handled a contempt order in a child custody dispute.
The father in that case claimed VanMeter wrongly held him in contempt and gave him no chance to purge after she ordered him to post a $5,000 surety bond for future compliance with court orders. After that, she later released that bond and ordered him to post a $7,500 bond again for future compliance.
“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 May 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 that father in contempt and given him a chance to purge that charge. If he failed to purge the contempt, then VanMeter could have ordered him to pay the $7,500 to the mother, 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 father.
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.
Kanawha Circuit Court case number 23-P-368 and West Virginia Intermediate Court of Appeals case number 23-ICA-67
