Sherry L.H. v. Hey
Annotate this Case
January 1992 Term
___________
No. 20855
___________
SHERRY L.H.,
Petitioner
v.
HONORABLE JOHN HEY,
JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF KANAWHA COUNTY,
AND STEPHEN L.H.,
Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Petition for Writ of Prohibition
WRIT GRANTED AS MOULDED
________________________________________________________
Submitted: March 3, 1992
Filed: June 12, 1992
Steven L. Miller
Miller & Reed
Cross Lanes, West Virginia
Attorney for the Petitioner
George A. Daugherty
Daugherty, Tantlinger & Daugherty
Charleston, West Virginia
Attorney for Respondent Stephen
L.H.
The Opinion of the Court was delivered PER CURIAM.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
1. "Prior to ordering supervised visitation pursuant to W. Va. Code, 48-2-15(b)(1) [1991], if there is an allegation involving whether one of the parents sexually abused the child involved, a family law master or circuit court must make a finding with respect to whether that parent sexually abused the child. A finding that sexual abuse has occurred must be supported by credible evidence. The family law master or circuit court may condition such supervised visitation upon the offending parent seeking treatment. Prior to ordering supervised visitation, the family law master or circuit court should weigh the risk of harm of such visitation or the deprivation of any visitation to the parent who allegedly committed the sexual abuse against the risk of harm of such visitation to the child. Furthermore, the family law master or circuit court should ascertain that the allegation of sexual abuse under these circumstances is meritorious and if made in the context of the family law proceeding, that such allegation is reported to the appropriate law enforcement agency or prosecutor for the county in which the alleged sexual abuse took place. Finally, if the sexual abuse allegations were previously tried in a criminal case, then the transcript of the criminal case may be utilized to determine whether credible evidence exists to support the allegations. If the transcript is utilized to determine that credible evidence does or does not exist, the transcript must be made a part of the record in the civil proceeding so that this Court, where appropriate, may adequately review the civil record to conclude whether the lower court abused its discretion." Syllabus
Point 2, Mary D. v. Watt, ___ W. Va. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (No. 20453
5/29/92).
2. "Where supervised visitation is ordered pursuant to
W. Va. Code, 48-2-15(b)(1) [1991], the best interests of a child
include determining that the child is safe from the fear of
emotional and psychological trauma which he or she may experience.
The person(s) appointed to supervise the visitation should have had
some prior contact with the child so that the child is sufficiently
familiar with and trusting of that person in order for the child to
have secure feelings and so that the visitation is not harmful to
his or her emotional well being. Such a determination should be
incorporated as a finding of the family law master or circuit
court." Syllabus Point 3, Mary D. v. Watt, ___ W. Va. ___, ___
S.E.2d ___ (No. 20453 5/29/92).
Per Curiam:
In this case, the petitioner, Sherry L.H., asks us to
issue a writ of prohibition against the Honorable John Hey, Judge
of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, to prevent enforcement of
Judge Hey's order of December 27, 1991, which granted to the
petitioner's ex-husband, Stephen L.H., supervised visitation with
their children. The petitioner alleges that the husband has
sexually abused the two daughters.
The petitioner has custody of her two daughters. Prior
to these proceedings, her ex-husband had been permitted generous
visitation with the daughters. According to the petition, in 1989,
the older daughter told the petitioner that her father had sexually
abused her. The petitioner had both daughters examined by a
physician and a psychologist, both of whom concluded that the older
daughter had been sexually abused. A petition to modify the
divorce decree and deny the father visitation with his daughters
was filed by the petitioner. Following a hearing, the family law
master issued a lengthy final report, in which she concluded that
the ex-husband had sexually abused his daughters. The family law
master recommended that all visitation between the father and the
daughters be stopped until the father had completed treatment.
Stephen L.H. petitioned the Circuit Court of Kanawha County to reinstate his visitation rights. The respondent judge
held a hearing on December 23, 1991, at which he heard the
arguments of counsel and considered documents, including
transcripts of the testimony of several experts taken before the
family law master. Following the hearing, the respondent judge
ordered that visitation be reinstated. The visitation was to be
supervised by a guardian ad litem, whose fee would be paid by
Stephen L.H. The visitation was to take place every other Saturday
for four hours at the home of the children's maternal grandmother.
The respondent judge further ordered both families to refrain from
speaking to the children about the other or about the pending case.
Sherry L.H. sought a stay of execution of the order in this Court,
which we granted.
This case is controlled by our recently issued opinion in
Mary D. v. Watt, ___ W. Va. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (No. 20453
5/29/92). In Syllabus Point 2 of Mary D., we stated:
"Prior to ordering supervised
visitation pursuant to W. Va. Code, 48-2-15(b)(1) [1991], if there is an allegation
involving whether one of the parents sexually
abused the child involved, a family law master
or circuit court must make a finding with
respect to whether that parent sexually abused
the child. A finding that sexual abuse has
occurred must be supported by credible
evidence. The family law master or circuit
court may condition such supervised visitation
upon the offending parent seeking treatment.
Prior to ordering supervised visitation, the
family law master or circuit court should
weigh the risk of harm of such visitation or
the deprivation of any visitation to the
parent who allegedly committed the sexual
abuse against the risk of harm of such
visitation to the child. Furthermore, the
family law master or circuit court should
ascertain that the allegation of sexual abuse
under these circumstances is meritorious and
if made in the context of the family law
proceeding, that such allegation is reported
to the appropriate law enforcement agency or
prosecutor for the county in which the alleged
sexual abuse took place. Finally, if the
sexual abuse allegations were previously tried
in a criminal case, then the transcript of the
criminal case may be utilized to determine
whether credible evidence exists to support
the allegations. If the transcript is
utilized to determine that credible evidence
does or does not exist, the transcript must be
made a part of the record in the civil
proceeding so that this Court, where
appropriate, may adequately review the civil
record to conclude whether the lower court
abused its discretion."
It appears that the family law master found sexual abuse
and that the circuit court did not disagree with this finding.
Consequently, the first requirement of Mary D. has been met.
The more controversial issue is whether supervised
visitation was warranted in this case. The family law master
recommended against any visitation until the father completed
counseling treatments. This recommendation was modified by the
respondent judge to allow supervised visitation. However, this
modification was made prior to our decision in Mary D. and, thus,
the judge did not have the benefit of the standards set out in
Syllabus Point 2 of that opinion. Consequently, we remand the case
for further consideration in light of those standards.
Finally, as earlier pointed out, the respondent judge did require that visitation be supervised and appointed an attorney as
guardian ad litem to supervise the visitation. We discussed in
Syllabus Point 3 of Mary D. some of the factors that must be
considered in selecting the person who will supervise the
visitation:
"Where supervised visitation is
ordered pursuant to W. Va. Code, 48-2-15(b)(1)
[1991], the best interests of a child include
determining that the child is safe from the
fear of emotional and psychological trauma
which he or she may experience. The person(s)
appointed to supervise the visitation should
have had some prior contact with the child so
that the child is sufficiently familiar with
and trusting of that person in order for the
child to have secure feelings and so that the
visitation is not harmful to his or her
emotional well being. Such a determination
should be incorporated as a finding of the
family law master or circuit court."
On remand, this case should be reviewed to determine whether this
standard has been met.
For the foregoing reasons, we grant petitioner a moulded
writ of prohibition to allow a review of this matter under the
principles set out in Mary D..
Writ granted as moulded.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.