Derrow v. Burkey
Annotate this Case
January 1995 Term
___________
No. 21935
___________
RONDA M. DERROW,
Plaintiff Below, Appellant,
v.
RONNIE LEE BURKEY,
Defendant Below, Appellee
_______________________________________________________
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Marshall County
Honorable John Madden, Judge
Civil Action No. 91-C-340M
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS
_______________________________________________________
Submitted: January 11, 1995
Filed: February 23, 1995
Gary L. Rymer
Moundsville, West Virginia
Attorney for the Appellant
Ronnie Lee Burkey, Appellee
Pro Se
JUDGE FOX delivered the Opinion of the Court.
JUSTICE BROTHERTON did not participate.
JUDGE FOX sitting by temporary assignment.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
When paternity of children is contested in a domestic
proceeding, the family law master must conduct a full and fair
hearing regarding this issue. Further, a recommended order as to
child custody which, in effect, resolves paternity questions must
set forth specific findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Fox, Judge:See footnote 1
This case comes before the Court on appeal from the
Circuit Court of Marshall County, West Virginia. By an order
entered 29 December 1992, the circuit court granted Ronnie Lee
Burkey, the appellee, custody of two children born during a time
when he and Ronda M. Derrow, the appellant, were cohabiting. The
court also ordered the appellant to pay child support and denied
her relief as to certain matters relating to property.
The appellant asserts the circuit court erred in adopting
the family law master's recommended findings and sets forth the
following specific assignments of error: (1) the family law
master's findings are incomplete and do not comply with statute or
applicable case law; (2) the circuit court erred in refusing to
allow appellant to be heard on the issue of paternity of the older
child and fitness of the respective parties; (3) the circuit court
erred in adopting the recommendations of the family law master with
regard to child support; and (4) the circuit court erred in
refusing to remand the case to the family law master for further
hearings regarding child custody and property distribution issues.
The record of the lower court proceedings, as designated
by the appellant, and the petition for appeal and accompanying
brief, are woefully inadequate. In addition, the appellee has made
no appearance in opposition to this appeal. As a result, this
Court is unable to make a reasoned determination as to the validity
of the appellant's various assignments of error, save one, the
paternity issue.
Ronda M. Derrow and Ronnie Lee Burkey began cohabiting in
November, 1977, and continued in this relationship until June,
1991. They were never married, but during the period of
cohabitation two children were born, Michael Paul Derrow (born 30
March 1977) and Ronnie Lee Derrow (born 25 June 1978). In 1982 the
appellant initiated change of name proceedings which changed the
surnames of the children from Derrow to Burkey.
On 18 June 1991, the appellant filed a complaint against
the appellee, seeking custody of both children, child support for
the younger child, and equitable distribution of all property
acquired during the couple's relationship.See footnote 2 In her complaint, the
appellant specifically alleged the appellee was not the father of
Michael Paul Burkey, the older child. In his answer, the appellee averred he was the father of both children, and sought their
custody.
The family law master conducted a hearing on 4 September
1991. The circuit court then entered an order on 26 September 1991
adopting the family law master's recommendations, granting custody
of both minor children to the appellee.See footnote 3 The family law master
held a second hearing on 13 January 1992, and tendered a
recommended order to the circuit court. This order set forth the
master's recommendations, specifically continuing custody of the
children with the appellee, holding in abeyance the issue of child
support, and denying the appellant's request for equitable
distribution of property under Goode v. Goode, 182 W.Va. 468, 396 S.E.2d 430 (1990). This proposed order was never entered by the
circuit court.
The appellant filed no petition for review or objections
to the rulings set forth in the proposed order; however, the
appellee filed a petition for review, asking for a reconsideration
of the child support ruling. The matter was remanded to the family law master by the circuit court and, after a hearing, the family
law master tendered another proposed order establishing child
support against the appellant in an amount to be computed using the
West Virginia Child Support Guidelines. Once again, this proposed
order was never entered by the circuit court. To this proposed
order, the appellant filed a pro se, handwritten document,
objecting only to the amount of child support recommended by the
family law master. The circuit court treated the appellant's
filing as a petition for review.
On 16 October 1992, the circuit court conducted a hearing
on the appellant's petition for review. Appellant was represented
by her present counsel. At this hearing, for the first time to the
knowledge of the circuit court as recited in its subsequent order,
the appellant raised the issue of the paternity of the older child.
The circuit court afforded the appellant an opportunity to file a
pleading "to bring the question of paternity before the court."
The appellant thereafter filed no pleading on this issue.
The circuit court, after waiting three months for the
paternity pleading which was never filed, entered its order of 29
December 1992. In that order, the circuit court recited certain
actions of the appellant which caused it to conclude she had waived
or abandoned the issue of the paternity of the older child. The
order then "sustain[ed] the finding [sic] and approve[d] the recommended decision of the family law master . . . ." It is from
this order the appellant takes this appeal.
The appellant, in her complaint which gave rise to the
civil action in the Circuit Court of Marshall County, denied that
the appellee was the father of her older child. The appellee, in
his answer, averred he was. Thus, the issue was clearly drawn.
The record is not clear regarding whether paternity was ever
addressed in hearings before the family law master. However, the
family law master made a custody recommendation which, in effect,
resolved this issue in favor of the appellee. Regrettably, the
family law master did not set forth any findings of fact or
conclusions of law in support of the custody recommendation.
Nevertheless, the circuit court adopted this recommendation.
Under W.Va. Code § 48A-4-13(e) (1994 Cum.Supp.), family
law masters must make findings of fact and conclusions of law on
all issues resolved and incorporate them in a proposed order.
When, as in this case, paternity of children is contested in a
domestic proceeding, the family law master must conduct a full and
fair hearing regarding the issue.See footnote 4 Further, a recommended order on
child custody which, in effect, resolves paternity questions must
set forth specific findings of fact and conclusions of law.
In this case, the family law master did not make the
findings of fact and conclusions of law required to support the
recommended order as it related to custody. For this reason, we
must reverse the 19 December 1992 order of the Circuit Court of
Marshall County on the custody issue.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Circuit Court of
Marshall County is reversed as to the custody of the minor
children, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
Reversed and remanded
with directions.
Footnote: 1 Pursuant to an administrative order entered by this Court on 18 November 1994, the Honorable Fred L. Fox, II, Judge of the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, was assigned to sit as a member of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals commencing 1 January 1995 and continuing through 31 March 1995, because of the physical incapacity of Justice W. T. Brotherton, Jr. On 14 February 1995 a subsequent administrative order extended this assignment until further order of said Court. Footnote: 2 In Goode v. Goode, 183 W.Va. 468, 396 S.E.2d 430 (1990), this Court ruled that equitable distribution principles may apply to property acquired by a man and woman who are unmarried cohabitants but who have considered themselves and held themselves out to be husband and wife.Footnote: 3 The circuit court's order of 26 September 1991 merely recites the appellee is to have custody of the minor children, subject to the appellant's right of visitation. The circuit court's final order, entered 29 December 1992, further clarifies the matter by indicating the earlier custody arrangement was by agreement of the parties. And yet, in pleadings filed before this Court, the appellant indicates custody was granted in accordance with the preferences of the infants, both of whom were over fourteen years of age, per Garska v. McCoy, 167 W.Va. 59, 278 S.E.2d 357 (1981).Footnote: 4 Reference is hereby made to syllabus points 2, 3, and 4 of Michael K.T. v. Tina L.T., 182 W.Va. 399, 387 S.E.2d 866 (1989), with regard to conducting a paternity hearing in a proceeding such as this.
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.