Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Lewis v. Lewis
Citations: 195 W. Va. 354; 465 S.E.2d 625; 1995 W. Va. LEXIS 209Docket: No. 22682
Court: West Virginia Supreme Court; November 16, 1995; West Virginia; State Supreme Court
In the appeal following the decision in Lewis v. Lewis, the court reaffirmed the application of the primary caretaker rule for child custody determinations. The trial court had previously erred by using a 'best interest of the child' standard instead of recognizing the primary caretaker, which is established in Garska v. McCoy. On remand, the circuit court upheld the family law master’s ruling that Timothy F. Lewis was the primary caretaker and fit to have custody of their daughter, Amber Dawn Lewis. Kathy F. Lewis contested this ruling but the court affirmed the decision, indicating no need for additional evidence. The court referenced the standard of review established in Burnside v. Burnside, which applies a three-pronged review process for findings by family law masters. The evidence presented showed that while Kathy was employed, Timothy took on the role of primary caregiver, managing various aspects of the child's care. Although Kathy later attempted to stay home with the child, she returned to work shortly after. Timothy's consistent caretaking role during this period led to the court's conclusion that he was the primary caretaker deserving of custody. The evidence demonstrated that although the father occasionally worked sporadically, a babysitter cared for the child during the day, and both parents shared care responsibilities after work, except when the mother worked late or overtime, in which case the father took sole responsibility. At the final hearing, the mother testified she had stopped working and moved to Morgantown. The mother's sister, who lived nearby, testified the child had a close relationship with both parents, noting the child often sided with the father but also enjoyed time with the mother. The family law master concluded that the father had been the primary caretaker, except for a brief period before and after the father's time in North Carolina. The court determined that there were no questions regarding fitness, establishing that the father was the primary caretaker and deserving of custody. The review aligned with West Virginia custody standards, which prioritize the primary caretaker's fitness. The court affirmed the family law master's findings, stating the evidence did not support any errors in judgment or abuse of discretion by the trial court.