West Virginia Child Custody Agreement
West Virginia is one of the few states whose statute tells the judge to order what the parents agreed, and where agreeing displaces the state's equal time default.
Find out where you stand in West Virginia
Where are you with the custody arrangement?
DocDraft provides document preparation, not legal advice.
Introduction
West Virginia allocates custodial responsibility and significant decision-making responsibility rather than custody and visitation, and it gives a parental agreement unusual force. W. Va. Code 48-9-201(a) provides that if the parents agree to one or more provisions of a parenting plan, the court shall so order, unless it makes specific findings that the agreement is not knowing or voluntary, or that the plan would be harmful to the child. That matters more here than in most states because West Virginia has a strong default to displace. Section 48-9-102a establishes a rebuttable presumption in favor of equal, 50-50 custodial allocation, and 48-9-206(a) requires the custodial time the child spends with each parent to be equal, but both 48-9-206(a) and 48-9-207(a) apply only unless otherwise resolved by agreement of the parents under 48-9-201. So an agreed plan is not merely respected in West Virginia, it takes the place of the state's equal time machinery. The plan still goes to a judge, and where there is credible information of child abuse or domestic violence the court must hold a hearing on it.
Key Things to Know
- 1
W. Va. Code 48-9-201(a) is an unusually strong agreement provision. If the parents agree to one or more provisions of a parenting plan, the court shall so order, unless it makes specific findings that the agreement is not knowing or voluntary, or that the plan would be harmful to the child. Those two grounds are the only ones the statute lists, and the rule works provision by provision, so partial agreement still counts for the parts you settled.
- 2
Rejection is bounded in a way most states' is not. Under 48-9-201(c), if an agreement in whole or in part is not accepted by the court, the court shall allow the parents the opportunity to negotiate another agreement rather than immediately imposing its own terms. Section 48-9-201(b) makes an evidentiary hearing on those grounds discretionary in an ordinary case but mandatory where there is credible information of child abuse or domestic violence, and 48-9-205(b) requires a process that ensures jointly submitted plans in those cases actually receive that review.
- 3
West Virginia presumes an equal split of the child's time. Section 48-9-102a creates a rebuttable presumption in favor of equal, 50-50 custodial allocation, rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence, and 48-9-206(a) provides that the custodial time the child spends with each parent shall be equal. Because 48-9-206(a) and 48-9-207(a) each apply only unless otherwise resolved by agreement of the parents under 48-9-201, an agreement is the ordinary route to any arrangement other than equal time.
- 4
The vocabulary is mixed, and both halves are current law. Article 9 of Chapter 48 is titled allocation of custodial responsibility and decision-making responsibility of children, and the two operative allocations are custodial responsibility under 48-9-206 and significant decision-making responsibility under 48-9-207. The newer equal time provisions use ordinary words as well: 48-9-102a is headed presumption in favor of equal 50-50 custodial allocation, and 48-9-203 and 48-9-204 speak of physical custody. Use the statutory labels as your headings, and do not assume West Virginia has dropped the word custody.
- 5
Section 48-9-205(a) requires a party seeking a judicial allocation of custodial responsibility or decision-making responsibility to file a proposed parenting plan, and expressly permits the parties to file a joint plan. Its eight items are disclosures: who the child has lived with, the parents and anyone else with standing, how caretaking has been divided, work and child care schedules, school and extracurricular activities, any 48-9-209 criteria including domestic violence restraining orders by case number and jurisdiction, financial information, and the known areas of agreement and disagreement with any other plan filed. The section also requires the court to keep filed information confidential where the person giving it has a reasonable fear of domestic abuse and disclosure would increase that fear.
- 6
Section 48-9-205(c) is a different list and should not be merged with the disclosure items. It sets out the five things a court-ordered parenting plan must contain: the child's living arrangements and each parent's custodial responsibility, stated either as a custodial schedule designating whose home the child is in on given days or as a formula detailed enough to be enforced later; an allocation of decision-making responsibility for significant matters reasonably likely to arise; a dispute resolution provision consistent with 48-9-202 together with remedies for violations; provisions for the financial support of the child, which is calculated separately; and a plan for the child's custody if a parent who is a National Guard, reserve or active duty component member is mobilized, deployed or called to active duty.
- 7
West Virginia has no conventional best interest checklist, and the list people usually point to has a narrow job. The seven factors at 48-9-209(f) answer one question, which the subsection states directly: whether the presumption for an equal 50-50 allocation of physical custody has been rebutted. The court considers all relevant factors including any of those seven, so the list is open rather than closed. Two other lists must not be confused with it: the eight objectives at 48-9-102(a) are the article's purposes, and the five items at 48-9-209(a) are limiting factors that trigger protective measures.
Key decisions before you file
Before you file a Child Custody Agreement in West Virginia, a few decisions shape the document: which option to choose and what each one means. The Child Custody Agreement guide walks through them.
Open the Child Custody Agreement guideCustomize your Child Custody Agreement Template with DocDraft
West Virginia Requirements for Child Custody Agreement
If the parents agree to one or more provisions of a parenting plan, the court shall so order, unless it makes specific findings that the agreement is not knowing or voluntary, or that the plan would be harmful to the child. State plainly in the document that both parents entered it knowingly and voluntarily.
Where an agreement is not accepted in whole or in part, the court shall allow the parents the opportunity to negotiate another agreement rather than imposing its own terms. Drafting the plan provision by provision makes it easier to keep what the court accepts and rework only what it does not.
West Virginia presumes equal custodial allocation, rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence, and 48-9-206(a) requires equal custodial time. Both 48-9-206(a) and 48-9-207(a) apply only unless otherwise resolved by agreement of the parents under 48-9-201, so say expressly if your schedule is not equal.
A party seeking a judicial allocation must file a proposed parenting plan, and the parties may file a joint one. The eight disclosure items cover household history, caretaking, work and child care schedules, school and activities, any 48-9-209 criteria including restraining orders by case number, financial information, and areas of agreement and disagreement.
The ordered plan must contain living arrangements and each parent's custodial responsibility as a schedule or enforceable formula, an allocation of decision-making responsibility, a dispute resolution provision with remedies for violations, provisions for the child's financial support, and a plan for mobilization or deployment of a parent in military service.
The schedule must designate in whose home the child resides on given days of the year, or set a formula or method detailed enough to be enforced later. Ambiguous alternating language is the most common reason a plan cannot be enforced without going back to court.
The plan's dispute resolution provision must be consistent with the mediation section. Under 48-9-202(c) the mediator may not make a recommendation to the court, so a mediated agreement is reviewed under the ordinary 48-9-201(a) standard rather than given any special status.
A relocating parent files a verified petition at least 90 days before the move, serves the summons at least 60 days in advance, and the hearing is held at least 30 days before the proposed date. There is no mileage threshold, and the relocating parent carries a three part burden that includes showing no less disruptive alternative is available.
An evidentiary hearing on the agreement is discretionary in an ordinary case but mandatory where there is credible information of child abuse or domestic violence, and the court must order appropriate protective measures if it finds abuse occurred. Section 48-9-205(b) requires a process ensuring jointly submitted plans in those cases are actually reviewed.
On a finding that a parent, or a person regularly in that parent's household, engaged in conduct listed at 48-9-209(a), the court shall impose limits reasonably calculated to protect the child or the child's parent. The parent then bears the burden of proving an allocation will not endanger the child or the other parent, and no allocation may be made without special written findings.
Frequently Asked Questions
Yes, and the statute says so in terms. W. Va. Code 48-9-201(a) provides that if the parents agree to one or more provisions of a parenting plan, the court shall so order, unless it makes specific findings that the agreement is not knowing or voluntary, or that the plan would be harmful to the child. Those are the only two grounds listed. The rule also operates provision by provision, so the parts you have settled are covered even if something else is still open.
Yes. The plan binds when the court orders it, not when the parents sign it. Under 48-9-201(b) the court may hold an evidentiary hearing on whether the agreement was knowing and voluntary or would be harmful to the child, on any basis it deems sufficient, and it must hold one where there is credible information of child abuse or domestic violence. If it finds abuse occurred, it must order appropriate protective measures.
It does not simply substitute its own terms. Under 48-9-201(c), if an agreement in whole or in part is not accepted by the court under the 48-9-201(a) standards, the court shall allow the parents the opportunity to negotiate another agreement. That gives you a second attempt at the provisions the court did not accept, which is unusual among the states.
Yes. W. Va. Code 48-9-102a establishes a rebuttable presumption in favor of equal, 50-50 custodial allocation, rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence, and 48-9-206(a) provides that the custodial time the child spends with each parent shall be equal. Both 48-9-206(a) and 48-9-207(a) apply only unless otherwise resolved by agreement of the parents under 48-9-201, so an agreement is the ordinary route to an arrangement other than equal time.
The formal labels are custodial responsibility and significant decision-making responsibility, and the article is titled allocation of custodial responsibility and decision-making responsibility of children. But the newer equal time provisions use the ordinary word: 48-9-102a is headed presumption in favor of equal 50-50 custodial allocation, and 48-9-203 and 48-9-204 refer to physical custody. Both vocabularies sit in the same article, so use the statutory labels for your headings and do not treat custody as a word West Virginia has abandoned.
Section 48-9-205(a) requires a party seeking a judicial allocation of custodial responsibility or decision-making responsibility to file a proposed parenting plan with the court, and it expressly permits the parties to file a joint plan. At the temporary stage 48-9-203(a) imposes the same duty on a parent seeking a temporary order relating to parenting. The section also requires the court to maintain the confidentiality of filed information where the person giving it has a reasonable fear of domestic abuse and disclosure would increase that fear.
Section 48-9-205(c) lists five things a court-ordered plan must include: the child's living arrangements and each parent's custodial responsibility, stated as a custodial schedule or as a formula detailed enough to be enforced later; an allocation of decision-making responsibility for significant matters reasonably likely to arise; a dispute resolution provision consistent with 48-9-202 plus remedies for violations; provisions for the financial support of the child, which is calculated separately from custody; and a plan for the child's custody if a parent in the National Guard, reserve or active duty component is mobilized, deployed or called to active duty. Keep that list separate from the eight disclosure items in 48-9-205(a), which are about telling the court who does what rather than about what the order decides.
One thing only. Section 48-9-209(f) opens by saying they apply in determining whether the presumption for an equal 50-50 allocation of physical custody has been rebutted, and the court is to consider all relevant factors including any of the seven, so the list is open. West Virginia has no separate general best interest checklist of the kind many states publish. The eight objectives at 48-9-102(a) are the article's purposes rather than decision factors, and the five items at 48-9-209(a) are triggers for protective limits.
You file, rather than simply give notice. Under 48-9-403 the relocating parent files a verified petition to modify the parenting plan at least 90 days before the move, with the summons served at least 60 days in advance, and the hearing held at least 30 days before the proposed relocation date. There is no mileage trigger; relocation counts as a substantial change when it impairs a parent's ability to exercise responsibilities being exercised or impairs the ordered custodial schedule. The relocating parent carries a three part burden under 48-9-403(d)(1), including showing there is no reasonable alternative to the proposed relocation that would be less disruptive to the child.
It is the one context where the court shall so order rule hardens into full scrutiny. Section 48-9-201(b) makes an evidentiary hearing mandatory where there is credible information of child abuse or domestic violence, and 48-9-205(b) requires a process ensuring jointly submitted plans in those cases actually get reviewed. If the court finds a parent, or another person regularly in that parent's household, engaged in conduct listed at 48-9-209(a), then 48-9-209(b) says it shall impose limits reasonably calculated to protect the child or the child's parent, and 48-9-209(c) puts the burden on that parent to prove an allocation will not endanger the child or the other parent, with special written findings required first. If abuse is part of your situation, talk to a lawyer before filing anything.