No. 23783 - Raymond J. Baugh v. Starr Kay Merritt
Maynard, Justice, dissenting:
I respectfully dissent because I strongly believe that being the parent of a two-year-old toddler is definitely not a part-time or temporary job, nor is it one that can be
postponed, and I am convinced that the mother in this case simply does not appreciate or
understand that basic fact, either intellectually or emotionally. Absent truly catastrophic
circumstances, such as grave illness or extremely severe disability, no mother should ever
abandon or even temporarily give up custody of a two-year-old child. One thing is
absolutely certain, mere "financial difficulties," no matter how dire, are never circumstances
which would justify a mother's abdication of her duty to nurture and care for her child,
especially when the child is an infant or a child of very tender years.
Indeed, as I write this dissent there are literally thousands of women with
children living in real and abject poverty who are nevertheless absolutely superb, wonderful
and caring mothers. On top of that, many of them are single parents who get little or no help
from absent fathers. These are mothers who positively would never consider leaving their
child simply because times are hard or money is short. For them, leaving a child would
simply be unthinkable, and they would be appalled if one were to suggest such a thing.
In their Opinion the majority states:
[t]he child involved in this case was born on August 19,
1992, and that he resided with the appellant, his natural mother,
until December 1994, when because of financial difficulties, she
determined that it was impossible for her to care properly
for him. . . .
In fact, and in truth, it was not "impossible" for this mother to care for her little
boy; it was merely inconvenient. Being the mother of a two year old is not something one
does just when it is easy or convenient. Her cavalier and casual attitude toward her
responsibility as a mother reminds me of a line from a popular song where a woman in a bar
asks a man if he is married, and he replies, "Sometimes." Well, you can't be a mother just
"sometimes" either. Unfortunately, this mother thinks she can.
The absence of a mother during the first three years of a child's life can have
a dramatic, devastating and very negative effect on a child, and more particularly, on the
entire rest of the child's life. As I write this, the President has just announced a recent
White House Conference entitled "I Am Your Child," which is based upon studies and new
evidence just released which emphasize how critical the first three years of a child's life are
to all aspects of its future development. The Conference title and its theme is, "The First
Three Years Last Forever." Simply and sadly, if a child doesn't get what it needs in the first
three years, he or she never will thereafter.
Reporting on these developments, Barbara Vobejda wrote in the April 18, 1997 issue of The Washington Post the following:
A panel of experts at a White House conference
yesterday described compelling new research showing that a
child's language, thinking and emotional health are largely
formed before age 3 and argued that the nation needs to
intervene earlier if the lives of many disadvantaged young
children are to be turned around.
In an unusual conference convening scientists and child
development specialists from around the country, panelists
called for high-quality day care, parenting education and
expanded health coverage for children, much of which is
supported by President Clinton and first lady Hillary Rodham
The conference, carried by satellite to nearly 100 sites
across the country, was meant to highlight a growing body of
research that points to a period of rapid brain development in
children from birth to age 3. Until a few years ago, infants were
commonly viewed as passive creatures largely unaware and
unaffected by their surroundings. But new research methods,
including brain scans, have allowed scientists to study the effect
of a child's environment on brain development in the first years
"The impact of the environment is dramatic and specific,
not merely influencing the general direction of development, but
actually affecting how the intricate circuitry of the brain is
wired," according to "Rethinking the Brain," a report by the
Families and Work Institute issued in connection with
Not only are most brain synapses -- connections between
brain cells -- formed before age 3, the report said, "those
synapses that have been activated many times by virtue of
repeated early experience tend to become permanent; the
synapses that are not used tend to become eliminated."
In effect, the research suggests that a child's brain
structure is still forming after birth, and that the language they
hear, the toys they play with, even the images they see combine
to affect the brain's long-term development.
And the Associated Press reported:
A report by the New York-based Families and Work
Institute, which was to form the core of the conference, found
that during the first three years of life, the vast majority of the
brain's synapses - or connections among brain cells - are
The ways in which parents and other care givers relate
with children during that formative period directly affect the
child's emotional development and their ability to handle stress
as adults, the report said.
In remarks during the conference, the First Lady said:
It is astonishing what we now know about the young
brain and about how children develop. Just how far we have
come is chronicled in a report being issued today by the
Families and Work Institute, entitled "Rethinking the Brain."
Fifteen years ago, we thought that a baby's brain structure was
virtually complete at birth. Now, we understand that it is a
work in progress, and that everything we do with a child has
some kind of potential physical influence on that rapidly-forming brain.
And as we now know, for the first three years of their
life, so much is happening in the baby's brain. They will learn
to soothe themselves when they're upset, to empathize to get
along. These experiences can determine whether children will
grow up to be peaceful or violent citizens, focused or
undisciplined workers, attentive or detached parents themselves.
That said, here is what I hope the conference will
accomplish. I hope it will get across the revolutionary idea that
the activities that are the easiest, cheapest and most fun to do
with your child are also the best for his or her development --
singing, playing games, reading, story-telling, just talking and
In this case, the mother drastically failed her child because she was not there
for singing, playing games, reading, story-telling, just talking and listening. You don't have
to be rich to do any of these things with a child, but, at least, you do have to be there!
During this all-important three-year period, a child must have intense
stimulation, contact, cuddling and affection; in other words, a high degree of attention must
be focused directly on the child. He or she must be challenged and rewarded and taught a
million things in direct and subtle ways, from motor skills to social interaction. Interestingly,
this study finds that this maturation and development consists of both emotional and physical
components. For example, a child who receives adequate attention and stimulation will
physically develop approximately 100 billion nerve connections during this important three-year period; and, a child who does not receive adequate stimulation and nurturing will
develop 25 to 30 percent less organic physical nerve connections. This deficit can never be
Of course, none of us really need to see the results of any university study to
know that a two-year old child desperately needs intense emotional attention and stimulation
to develop and mature properly. Our mothers and grandmothers knew it and so do we.
Kids of any age, but especially this age, need affection and love and they need
it demonstrated constantly. They need to be hugged and cuddled. They need somebody to
pick them up when they fall, and pet the hurt places, and kiss away the tears, and make them
well, and put Band-Aids on even when they are not really needed. They need both parents
and they especially need their mother. This little two-year-old boy urgently needed his
mother and she should have been there to show him affection; she should have been there
to wash his face and to dress him; she should have been there to teach him all the very
important little things. This little boy needed his mother for all these and for a thousand
other things every day. But she just was not there when he needed her so desperately. She
abandoned him to others at this most critical part of his life.
This mother says she left her child when he was barely two years old because
of financial difficulties. The majority accepts this excuse, but I simply cannot. Today, we
live in the modern welfare state in the United States. In West Virginia we currently spend
a very substantial part of our State budget each year to provide aid to mothers, such as Ms.
Merritt, who have dependent children. If Ms. Merritt had bothered to go to the local DHHR
office in Lewis County and ask for help, she would have received it immediately.
If she had gone to DHHR, what kind of help could she really have gotten and
when? Would it have been substantial and meaningful help and would it really allow her the
basic means to live and support her child?
Well, for starters, the very day she walked in the local DHHR office she would
have received Gibson(1) funds to rent an apartment or house, or the DHHR would have put her
up in a hotel or motel, fully at State expense, until they could find permanent housing for her.
Also, that very same day, she would have received emergency food stamps to buy food and
necessities for herself and her little boy, as well as emergency benefits. If she needed
clothing for herself or her child, it likewise would have been provided that very day. The
same is true of medical care. If she or the child needed to see a physician or needed
prescription medicine, she would have been given an emergency medical card that very day
which would have paid the total cost of doctor visits, hospital bills and drugs. (Wouldn't you
like to have a medical plan like that?!!) Gibson funds could have been used to do anything
that would keep her and the child together. For example, Gibson funds can pay utility
deposits, pay for transportation, hire a car, or pay gas money, buy a refrigerator or other
appliances, or any one of a hundred other things.
The assistance described above was all available to Ms. Merritt on the same
day she would have first visited the DHHR office. Long term, it is apparent she also would
have received a monthly welfare check, monthly food stamps, free and complete medical,
hospital and dental care, free rent through one of several HUD programs, and periodic
vouchers for clothing for her little boy. In fact, with a child under five, she was eligible for
the "WIC" program, which would provide vouchers for food for her and the baby in addition
to food stamps; the program would provide regular infant medical screening and medical
care in addition to her medical card. It was all free and it was all there for the asking. Given
these facts, it is simply preposterous for this mother to claim that she had to abandon her
two-year-old child who needed her so desperately because of financial reasons.
Having said all that, however, the facts of this case are not what I'm really
fussing about. My real complaint is the law which the majority cites in deciding this case.
They rely heavily on Overfield v. Collins, ___ W.Va. ___, 483 S.E.2d 27 (1996). I was not
here when Overfield was decided in December 1996, and accordingly, had no opportunity
to dissent in that case. I certainly would have, however, and since I couldn't then, I will
dissent now, in the instant case.
Some of Overfield is bad law. It creates two different standards for
determining custody of a child, depending on whether a parent who transferred custody did
so on a temporary or a permanent basis.
Syllabus point 2 of this case, citing Overfield, establishes a fair and common
sense procedure by which we can undo permanent custody transfers. The burden of proof
is placed on the parent attempting to regain custody, and that parent has to prove: 1) that he
or she is fit; and 2) that a transfer of custody which would disturb the child's existing
environment would constitute a significant benefit to the child. This is a good rule which
really serves the best interests of children who have been bounced around from pillar to post.
Oddly, that is not the rule by which we undo temporary custody transfers. I
strongly believe the rule should be the same to reverse either temporary or permanent
custody transfers. The Overfield rule for temporary transfers, which shifts the burden of
proof to the third party after a showing of fitness, is not in the best interest of children in
these types of custodial situations.
Further, the Overfield presumption that any transfer of custody, not expressly
specific as to duration, is temporary is likewise not in the best interest of affected children.
Children need continuity of caretakers and regularity in all aspects of life. That which is
unknown and uncertain is what really generates anxiety and fear for all of us, adults and
Ideally, we would have only one test for reversing either temporary or
permanent custody transfers, and that would be the Overfield test cited in syllabus point 1
of this case; and we would have no presumptions in favor of parents who give up children.
I personally like the ancient cases which state that the Polar Star of Consideration in every
child custody case should be what is best for the child. No presumptions and no "contract"
analysis of the "intent" of parties concerning some writing should govern who gets custody
of a child. Any rule of law that makes a child custody decision turn on a consideration of
contract principles or legal presumptions is a bad rule. That is precisely what Overfield does
and that is what is wrong with the case. Custody cases should be decided based on what is
best for the child. Always!
In the majority opinion, they at least pay lip service to the "best interest"
principle by referring to Lemley v. Barr, 176 W.Va. 378, 343 S.E.2d 101 (1986), but they
do not apply it in the present case in a practical way.
For the foregoing reasons, I think the trial judge in this case was right.
Accordingly, I would affirm his wise decision to leave this little boy with people who really
want him, and who will always be there for him when he needs them, and not just
"sometimes" or when it is convenient.
There's a quote from the Chilean poet, Gabriella Mistral, that reminds us,
"Many things we need can wait; the child cannot. Now is the time his bones are being
formed, his blood being made, his mind being developed. To him, we cannot say, tomorrow.
His name is today."
For those reasons, I respectfully dissent.
1. The so called "Gibson" case is Gibson v. Ginsberg, No. 78-2375 (S.D.W.Va. Sept. 28, 1981), which resulted in a Consent Decree which was entered on September 28, 1981, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.