## Facts

- Patricia Ann S. (mother) and James Daniel S. (father) married in 1967 and had three children: Jason (14), Justin (11), and Jennifer (7).
- Patricia left her job as a kindergarten teacher after the first child was born and primarily managed the home; James worked as an architect.
- Evidence showed child-rearing responsibilities were substantially shared: Patricia generally cooked weekday dinners; James cooked on weekends; James handled school-morning routines and participated in childcare after work; both parents shared bedtime routines, discipline, and participation in school and social activities.
- Discipline and temperament evidence conflicted: James used physical discipline (belt/hand); Patricia attended parenting classes and used other methods; some witnesses described Patricia as verbally harsh toward the children.
- Psychological testimony indicated the children reported fear of their mother and greater emotional security with their father; a neutral psychologist recommended father have the boys, mother have the daughter, but gave limited, generalized reasons for separating the siblings; other testimony emphasized keeping the children together.
- Patricia alleged James abused her physically and psychologically, but the custody decision turned on the children’s welfare and the parents’ fitness rather than spousal allegations.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred in finding neither parent was the “primary caretaker,” so neither received a primary-caretaker presumption.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by awarding custody of all three children to the father, including the daughter, despite competing expert recommendations.
3. Whether the trial court improperly considered or relied on psychological expert testimony in deciding custody.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the determination that neither parent qualified as the primary caretaker and that custody should be decided under a best-interests analysis.
- The court affirmed awarding custody of the two sons to the father, finding no clear abuse of discretion based on the record, including lay and psychological evidence about the boys’ emotional security and parent-child relationships.
- The court remanded for further proceedings regarding custody of the daughter because the record was insufficiently developed to permit a final determination of her best interests.
- The court accepted the use of psychological expert testimony as a permissible component of the best-interests inquiry.

## Legal Principles

- If the court cannot clearly identify one parent as having primary responsibility for caring and nurturing duties, neither parent receives the primary-caretaker presumption, and the court proceeds under best interests.
- Child custody decisions rest within the trial court’s discretion and are reviewed for clear abuse of discretion.
- Courts may consider psychological expert testimony in custody disputes as part of the best-interests determination.
- When the appellate court cannot fairly determine the proper judgment due to an inadequate record, remand for further development is appropriate.

## Conclusion

Where parents shared child-rearing responsibilities and no primary caretaker could be identified, custody properly turned on best interests without a presumption; the custody award for the sons was affirmed, but the daughter’s custody was remanded because the evidentiary record did not adequately address her specific best interests.


Patricia Ann S. v. James Daniel S., 435 S.E.2d 6 (W. Va. 1993)