IN THE FAMILY COURT OF PUTNAM COUNTY, WEST VillGINIA

In Re The Marriage Of: 10\3 JAN 23 M' 8~ 50 DOLORES JEAN HALBURN, Petitioner

Rnd

MARK VANCE HALBURN, Respondent.

Civil Action No. ll-D-516 Judge Mike Kelly

FINAL DIVORCE ORDER

On October 1 and 15, 2012} came the Petitioner and her counsel, Henry R. Glass, and the

Responde~t and his counsel, Michael S. Bailey, for trial upon the verified Petition for Divorce, the Response to Petition for Divorce, and Notices of Hearing, all duly and timely filed and

served. Whereupon, the Court received the testimony of the parties and their respective

witnesses, and the exhibits and other evidence of each party,

Based on all of the evidence, the pleadings, motions, and disclosures, and all other

matters of record, and after an assessment of credibility, the Court hel'eby makes the following

FINDINGS OF FACT and CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:

I. JURISDICTIONAL FACTS

1. At the time of the filing of the Petition in this action, the Petitioner and

Respondent were, and for mote than one year next preceding the date of the institution of this

action had been, citizens and residents of Putnam County, West Virginia.

2. The Petitioner and Respondent were duly and legally married in Putnam COUllty,

-1-

West Virginia, on August 29, 1998.

3. The Petition was filed in this action in November 2011. The Respondent

continued to live in the residence owned by Petitioner and her mother situate in Putnam County,

West Virgi.nia, until March 2012, at which time he vacated the residence and the parties

separated. which separation has been continuous and intel'l'upted.

4. There was one (1) minor child born to the marriage,

Halbum. born August 29,2007.

5. Neither the Petitioner nor the Respondent is incompetent, an incarcerated convict,

or a member of the armed forces of the United States of America or any of its allied nations.

6. I Il1'econcilable differences have arisen between the parties, within the meaning of

Chapter 48. Article 5, Section 201> of the West Virginia Code, 1931, as amended, as alleged and

testified to by the parties, and a divorce should be granted on such grounds. Given this

agreement, the COUlt took only limited evidence from Ms. Halburn that other reasons she sought

the divorce included the various arrests of her husband, the constant turmoil he created at home

and in public, the pornography on his computer, their lack of sexual relations for at least four

years. and his obsession with his website.

-2-

II. CfllLD SUPPORT

7. The Respondent is presently employed as a substitute teacher, though he is seldom

offered wOlk, and, additionally, eams income through his intemet website, PutnarnLive. For

purposes of calculating child support, he admits to a gross monthly income of $3,250,00.

8. The Petitioner is presently employed by and has a gross

monthly income

9. The portion of health, dental and vision insurance paid by Petitioner to insure the

minor child is $147.20 pel' month. The Petitioner also incurs child care expense at

Preschool and Daycare of $50 per week when school is in session, $30 per day during non-school

holidays, and $135 per week during the non~school summer recess, resulting in an annual

expenditure of approximately $4,000 or an average of$333.33 per month.

10. Pursuant to the attached income shares child support formula, the Respondent

shall pay child SUpp0l1 in the amount of $613.37 per month for the SUppOlt, maintenance and

education of the minor child commencing Febl'uary 1, 2013 and continuing each month thereafter

until the fbrthel' order of the Court. and so long as the child remains unman'ied, unemancipated,

and so long as the child is enrolled as a full-time student in a secondary school or vocational

school and is making substantial progress towards a degree; provided, that such payments may

not extend past the date that the child reaches the age of twenty, The child support payments are

-3-

to be reduced or terminated only in accordance with the West Virginia Code sections, 48-11-101,

et seq ..

1 L Pursuant to W.Va. Code 48-14-401, income withholding shall begin

immediately. All payments shall be made to the Bureau for Child Support Enforcement, Post

Office Box 247, Charleston, West Virginia 25321.

12. The Petitioner shall continue to provide medical health, dental, optical, and

pharmaceutical insurance for the minor child of the parties for so long as it available through her

employment.

13. Any medical, health, dental, optical, or pharmaceutical expense that is not covered

by insuHUlce shall be paid by the pru.1ies with Petitioner paying 45% and Respondent paying

55%. The party incurring uninsured medical, dental or ophthamological costs shall submit proof

of the same within 90 days ofincuning the expense. The other party shall pay his/her share

within 30 days. If a pru."ty fails or refuses to pay his/her share withollt a lawful reason 01' good

faith excuse. he/she may be held in contempt of court. Please refer to the attached Rules for

Childl"en's Medical Expenses.

14. Pursuant to W.Va. Code 48-13-801 the Petitioner is allocated the right to claim

the dependent child for income tax purposes commencing for Tax Year 2012 and continuing

until fulthel' order of the COUli.

-4-

15. Dolores Halburn is the designated custodian of the minor child of the parties

pursuant to W.Va. Code 48-9-602. This designation shall not affect either parent's right and

responsibilities as otherwise set forth in this Order.

III. ALLOCATION OF CUSTODIAL RESPONSIBILITY

16. The primaty dispute in this case is the allocation of custodial responsibility for the

parties' child, who is five years of age.

17. Based on the evidence presented as set forth inft'a, the COUlt hereby allocates to

Mark Halbtlfn evelY other Saturday and Sunday commencing at 9:00 a.m. and ending a.t 8:00

p.m. each day beginning Februaty 2,2013. At all other times, except as specifically set forth

herein. the child shall remain in the care and control of Dolores Halburn. There being good

cause for doing so, the current prohibition on Mr. Halburn removing the child from the State of

West Virginia shall remain in full force and effect..

A. The Forensic Psychological Evaluation

18 Pursuant to the motion of Mr. Halburn, the Court during the course of the

proceedil1gs entered an Order requiring each palty to submit to a psychiatric evaluation as an aid

to the Comt in determining the appropriate allocation of custodiall'esponsibility. When Ms.

Halburn objected to the cost of the health care provider selected by the COUlt, each party was

allowed to obtain an evaluation by a provider of their choice and at their own expense. Mr.

-5-

Halburn complied. Ms. Halbum did not. Due to heL' failure to adhere to the Order of the Court,

Ms. Halburn is assessed a civil penalty in the amount of$lOO payable to the Putnam County

Parent Education Fund on or before April!, 2013.

19. Mr. Halburn was evahlated by Clifton R. Hudson, Ph.D . a licensed psychologist

with Hudson ForensIc Psychology who was chosen and paid for by Mr. HalbulU. Dr. Hudson

found, in pertinent part, as follows:

(a) Mr. Halburn reported having a "turbulent" childhood with a mother who "had a

lot of mental problems growing up". Both parents had difficulty controlling their tempers. The

mother "attempted to kill herself 6 01' 7 times." His patemal grandmother "was in and out of

psychiatric facilities" and his paternal grandfather was "abusive and alcoholic." He reported that

his one sibling, a sister, has had problems with ('meth and other things." I

(b) Mr. Halburn also repOlted several alTests, all of which he attlibuted to "srnall~

town retaliation against reporters." The arrests include a guilty verdict on a charge of trespassing

in 2009.

(c) Dr. Hudson found that Mr. Halburn " ... tends to present himself in a consistently

favorable light, and as being relatively free of cOmmon shortcomings ... " This tendency leads

. him to "minimize, 01' perhaps even be unaware of, problems or other areas where functioning

might be less than optimal." While Mr. Halbulll denied problems with alcohol Or drugs) Dr.

Hudson warned that" ... attention should be paid to the possibility of denial of problems with

drinking or drug use as Mr. Halburn described certain personality characteristics that are often

associated with involvement with alcohol or drugs."

-6-

Cd) Dr. Hudson found that Mr. Halburn Ct sees little need for changes in his

behaviol'."

(0) Most importantly, while noting that Mr. Halbm'n likely poses no direct threat of

physical harm to Dr. Hudson was concerned that Mr. Halburn's continued

intelperso~al conflicts present an increased risk ofhal'm to the child. Specifically, Dr. Hudson

cautioned as follows:

Mr. Halburn's clinical interview was most significant for an apparent pattern of conflictual interpersonal relationships. While Ml.'. Halburn frames these in terms of his tenacity in standing up for his own tights and those of his family, it appears that he has a persistent tendency to allow his emotions to dictate certain aspects of his behavior, resulting in circumstances counterproductive to his own stated goals. He appears lacking in awareness of his own contribution to these conflicts, instead focusing on his perceptions of the inappropriate behavior of others and his expectations that others should t1'eat him fairly even after he has angered them.

It appears likely that Mr. Halburn will continue to generate interpersonal conflict and that his son will ultimately have some degl:ee of exposure to that conflict. However, this examiner is aware of no credible allegations that Mr. Halbmn has ever become violent with anyone or that he has ever mistreated his son. His past behavior in this respect is the most valid indicator offuture behavior. While the cW'l'ently opined personality disorder is jndeed a lisk factor fol' violent behavior, it is just one of many and does not by any means correlate precisely with violence risk. Mr. Halburn's histOlY of having been physically abused as a child and his cui'l'ent level of life stress would also constitute risk factors for violence .. . . There is some evidence of a positive bond between Mr. Halburn and that should be construed as constituting a protective factol' against future child maltreatment.

(f) Dr. Hudson made provisional diagnoses of:

Axis I: Axis II: Axis III: Axis IV:

Axis V:

Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood Personality Disorder NOS Non-insulin-dependel1t diabetes mellitus, obesity (per self-report) Health concerns, ongoing family COUlt case, partial estrangement from Son GAP = 65 (as of initial evaluation)

-7-

(g) Dr. Hudson also made the following recommendations:

1. Mr. Halbum might benefit from individual psychotherapy focused tlpon mood, interpersonal relationships, affective regulation, and awareness of the consequences of his behavior for his own life.

2. Psychiatric consultation is not clearly indicated at this time, though trials ofSSRI antidepressants or mood stabilizers could potentially prove useful in assisting with mood regulation at times of heightened stress.

20. In his report, Dr. Hudson made reference to a "Forensic Psychiatric Evaluation" of

Mr. Halbum done by Dr. Daniel B. Thisclewaite, M.D., in 2008 in connection with litigation

between Mr. Halbul'n and Wal-Mart Dr. Thistlewaite found as follows:

IMPRESSION:

Axis I: Malingering. Significant symptom exaggeration was noted on psychological instruments designed to assess for exaggeration of cognitive deficits.

Axis II: Personality disorder. not otherwise specified, with narcissistic and paranoid traits.

Axis ill:

Axis IV:

Axix V:

Hypertension; Diabetes Mellitus; Sleep Apnea.

Psychosocial Stressors - Litigation

Current GAF - estimated at 60 to 65 with chronic impairment due to personality disorder.

DISCUSSION: There is no evidence that Mark Halburn suffers from a psychiatric illness as a result of any stress created by construction of a shopping center which is jn the proximity of his home. Mr. Halburn has been distressed, upset, and angered by what he perceives as improper due process and believes that he is the target of the authorities. All of this is the result of a severe personality disorder which predates any of the alleged strcsSOrS.

It should be noted that Mr. Halburn's psychological profile and behavior would

-8-

suggest that he has propensity for aggressive behavior, No history of overt violence is found; however, given his degree of agitation and volatility noted during our examination, any threats made by Mr. Halburn should be taken seriously and dealt with appropriately.

21. Dr, Hudson, the psychologist) noted his disagreement with Dr. Thistlewaite. the psychiatrist, in celtain respects:

Based on an observed pattern of chaotic interpersonal relationships and affective dysregulation, D1'. Thistlewaite opined the presence of personality disorder not otherwise specified, with narcissistic and paranoid personality traits.

Dr. Thistlewaite's report arguably somewhat unfahly labels Mr. Halbum as a malingerer, as the results of two cognitive malingering tests were inconsistent and Mr. Halburn did not perform particularly poorly on an abbreviated IQ test 01' a brief measure of executive functioning. Dr. Thistlewaite) s assessment of Mr. Halburn's violence risk as being significant is also questionable. While it is tme that personality disorder characteristics such as those that Dr. Thistlewaite observed in Mr. Halburn constitute a risk factor for violence, this would be but 011e of many such risk factors and in isolation should not be construed as significantly elevating violence risk in an individual without a known histOlY of significant violence. This examiner notes that it would be reasonable to weight Mr. Halburn' s personality issues more heavily if a known history of significant violence had been substantiated.

B. Testimony of Dolores Halhllrn

22. In her argument in SUppOlt ofl'estrictions on Mr. Halburn's parenting time, Ms.

Halburn cites the same pe~sonality disorder characteristic noted by the two mental health experts:

her husband's inability to control his impulse to generate interpersonal conflict. She is concerned

not that he will directly harm but that he will cteate conflict with third parties which might scare or alarm 01' traumatize or place the young child in reasonable apprehension

of bodily harm caused by others or, if Mr. Halbtlm is arrested yet again. might result in the child

9

being placed in the temporary care of unknown private or public third p3.l1ies until Ms. Halburn

can retrieve him. She has palticular concerns about Mr. Halburn being anested out of state while

is in his care, leaving the child at the mercy of unknown third parties for an extended

period of time.

23. As proof of her reasonable COncern for safety while alone with his

father. Ms. Halburn cites a 2008 incident in the Atlanta airport in which her husband became ,

enraged at !a clerk and they were escorted out of the aitport by uniformed security. She testified

credibly that Ml'. Halburn was so out of control that she feared they would be arrested. She

worries that if a similar incident happens when is alone with his father out of state that

the child may be placed in emergency foster care until she could get to him. As predicted by the

mental health experts, Mr. Halburn denied the gravity ofthe airpolt incident and blamed it on the

clerk. The Court finds Ms. Halburn's version of events to be much more credible than the

father's and credits it as true.

24. Ms. Halbum's case for restrictions also relies on her husband's numerous arrests,

two anecdotal incidents at hotels, his sustained harassment of private individuals and companies

as well as various public officials and entities, and her claim that their application to be foster

parents was denied because of his behavior. She 8l'gues that his volatile, uncontrollable and

unpl"edictable rages Ulmecessarily increases the risk of harm to

25. :Mr. Halbum's arrests follow the pattern clearly seen by the mental health

-10-

professionals: he generates needless conflict and then overreacts when his bullying tactics are

resisted. In January 2007 he was arrested for making harassing, obscene and threatening phone

calls. In August 2008 he was a1'l'ested for trespassing and assault. In August 2009 he was al1'ested

for trespassing. In October 2012, at the conclusion of the frrst day of trial in this case, he was

arrested for' making harassing phone calls. The fact that he was later convicted on only one of the

charges is immaterial (the trial on the last charge is still pending). It is the arrest itself which

could result in psychological andlor physical harm to the child. Moreover, there is no reason to I

believe that this pattern will cbange since, as Dr. Hudson, his own witness, noted Mr.

Halburn"".sees little need for changes in his behavior."

26. Ms. HaLburn also testified credibly that the father has used his Wednesday

overnight only sparingly since it was awarded him and that he frequently returns the child in the

evening during his scheduled weekend overnights. In fact, he retuI'ned on both the

Friday and Satul'day evenings immediately prior to the last trial date.

C. The Testimony of Dr. Hudson

27. In his testimony at trial, Dr. Hudson, Mr. Halburn's expert witness, affirmed his

written finding iliat Mr. Halburn's personality disorder and the interpersonal conflict that it

generates show a pattern that clearly establishes the probability that he'll continue to have more

confl'On~tions, especially given his lack of awareness as to his own contribution to the conflict.

Dr. Hudson testified that Mr. Halbum allows his emotions to dictate his behavior reg:udless of

-11-

, : ,

the circumstances or the consequences.

28. When asked if, given his assessment and the very young age of the child, it would

be pI'udent to lift the temporary restriction on Mr. Halburn traveling alone with the child out of

state, Dr. Hudson, Mr. Halburn's own witness, testified that:

I find that to be a relatively difficult question ... I do believe that additional conflicts are likely to occur. I do believe that certainly if one is having those types of conflicts one is at somewhat elevated l'isk ... one could run in to someone who responds to that type of risk violently even if Mr. Halburn is not initiating violence ... r have to say there is some level of additional risk for a child in that situation. I would not assess that to be neccssarHy very high, but the child is likely to be exposed to some argument here and there. I don't think it's likely that the child will be put in harm's way as a result of that but I can;t rule out that possibility.

D. Mr. Halbum's Personality Disorder and This Litigation

29. During the course of this case, Ml', Halhum's personality disorder, as diagnosed

by two mental health expelts, not only surfaced, but it became even more bizan'e, irrational and

divorced from reality as the case pl'ogressed, leading the Court to conclude that the dsk that Mr.

Halbum will become violent is closer to the opinion of Dr, Thistlewaite than to that of Dr.

Hudson.

30. Mr. Halburn's mental unraveling in this case began with the entry of an

uncontested temporary order on January 27,2012, that included the sentence "Respondent shall

not remove said child from the State of West Virginia without the express written permission of

-12-

Petitioner or this COU11."

31. The restriction was made part ofthe order as a result of Dr. Thistlewaite's finding

that Mr. Halbum has serious mental health issues that include a personality disorder (not

otherwise specified) with naroissistic and paranoid traits and chronic impailment due to

personality disorder. There was also a proffer; later proved to be true, that Mr. Halburn had been

involved in a confrontation at an ail'polt that nearly resulted in the family being taken into

custody and that the risk of such further conduct while he was traveling alone with the child was

high. The Court did not make any fmdings at the temporary hearing regarding Mr. Halburn's

mental fitness; deferring that issue for J'esolution at trial, then scheduled for May 2,2012. When

the temporary order was presented for ently, Mr. Halburn did not object to the "out of state"

restriction.

32. On Aprilll, Mr. Halburn, who moved to South Carolina after the tomporary order was entered, emailed his wife:

Every day I see wonderful things here that would enjoy. Today, I was interviewing near the water park that he loves. It opened last month. Putnam County DOES NOT HA VB A WATER PARK and the idiots that run the place won't open the pools until Memorial Day and deserves better than what West Virginia has to offer.

33. That same day, Mr. Halburn filed a motion to modify the temporary order to allow

him to transport his son out of state for the period of April 12-17, 2012 (NB: the motion was

filed one day before the anticipated trip). The motion was promptly scheduled for a

-13-

teleconference on April 13, 2012, two days after filing. Again, Ms. Halburn raised serious

questions as to her husband's mental fitness. The COUlt deferred a ruling on that issue until the

final hearing, then only nineteen days away. The Court specifically found that it would be unfair

to bOTh sides to try such an important issue by teleconference. This was the beginning of Mr.

Halbtlrn becoming unhinged.

34. On April 16, Mr. Halburn's then attorney filed a motion to be relieved as his

counsel.

35. The next day, Mr. Halbum, acting pro se, filed a "Motion for Recusal, Reversal of

TempOl'ary Order, Impeachment and Sanctions." In his motion, Mr. Halburn made the following

accusations:

(a) The refusal to vacate the restriction for nineteen days "violated (the child's] right

to have the presence of his father in his life on a daily basis";

(b) The ruling caused the child to suffer "probably permanent psychological harm";

(c) The Order was "improper" and "insane";

(d) The Court "is an arrogant power thug and is out of control";

(e) The Court ''must be stopped;

(f) The COUlt "must be ordered immediately pay for a beach trip" (sic) for the child;

(g) The Ordei- 'Ishould be immediately reversed upon receipt of this email";

(h) The Court "must be recused from this case and impeached from the bench"; and

(i) Ms. Halbutn's attorney should "be sanctioned and disbarred from practicing law

-14"

in West Virginia".

36. On Apl'il18, the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Appeals warned Mr. Halburn for

the first time that " . . . it is improper for you to further contact me via ewmaillegal'ding this

matter. In addition, it is improper for you to contact the Chief Justice or any other member ofthe

SUpl'eme Court at any time about this matter."

37. On April 19, the motion to recuse was denied by the Chief Justice.

38. Also on April 19, with trial only thirteen days away, counsel' s motion to withdraw ,.

was heard by teleconference. During the hearing, Mr. Halbum lost all control:

(a) "The Judge in this case is an idiot";

(b) "The Judge should be imprisoned and impeached";

(c) "The Judge should walk away and find another line of work and I can email him

an application for McDonald's ... but I wouldn't wish that on McDonald's":

(d) Ms. Halburn' s lawyer is Ii "documented liar"; and

(e) Ms. Halburn's lawyer is "a lying sack of crap",

39. Counsel 's motion to withdl'aw was granted,

40. On April 25. Mr. Halburn requested a ninety day continuance, His motion was

granted and the proceedings \vere continued until August 8, 2012, a date selected with his

-l5~

, ..

approval. The restriction on out of state travel with was, therefore, extended due to his

own request to continue the case fOl' ninety days.

41. Also on April 25, Mr. Halbum filed a "Motion to vacate temporary order,

impeach Judge Michael 1. Kelly, and order sanctions against Henry Glass." In this filing, Mr. I

Halburn: '

(a) Refers to the Court as "Kangaroo Court Judge Michael Jackass Kelly";

(b) Claims the travell'estrictions "arbitrarily and capriciously [depdve] of a

full-time father";

(c) Calls Mr. Glass, Ms. Halburn's attorney, "bizarre, anti-social and malicious.

Glass should be disbal1'ed and sanctioned for his false allegations";

(d) Demands the temporary order 'must be IMMEDLA TEL Y be vacated upon receipt

of this motion" (SiC);

(e) Suggests " ... the court could order the State of West Virginia to build a zoo, near

Charleston by 5:00 pm EDT, April 22, 2012 and to move the Atlantic Ocean to the State of West

Virginia";

(f) Urges the Court to sanction Ms. Halburn's counsel "the sum of $1 0 million to be

paid inunediately";

(g) Conunands that Ms. Halburn's counsel and the COUlt personally fund a week

long beach trip for [the child] upon receipt of this motion" and "must also fund the travel of [the

child's] classmates and teachers to the beach . . . ";

(h) Enjoins the COUlt to "order [Ms. Halbum] to provide Mark Halburn with a

-16-

cashier's check for $50,000 by noon, Apri125, 2012";

(i) Labels the temporary order "wacky "insane" and "onerous";

G) Directs that the Supreme Court "MUST order [the judge] OFF this case, OFF

THE BENCH PERMANENTLY and order [the judge] to pay for a spring break trip for [the

child's] ENTIRE preftschool , , . to preserve the safety of these students, [the judge] must be

BANNED from having ANY contact with them on their trip";

(k) States that ( In fact, there no such person as a 'Ms. Halburn' (sic)";

(1) , Wishes that "(the judge] should be permanently committed to Mildred Mitchell-

Bateman Hospital until he does society and favor and passes (sic)"; and

(m) Refers to the Court as a "wacky judge", who is incompetent for failing to require

his wife to pay him a "$50,000 settlement" when he left the home.

42. In numerous other filings Mr. Halburn has stated that the Court:

(a) "Writes checks that his brain cannot cash";

(b) "Is a menace to society that should be imprisoned "; and

(c) "[is] the poster child for a lifetime admittance to Mildred Mitchell-Bateman".

43. Additionally, in numerous telephone calls to the Court, Mr. Halburn:

(a) Demanded a hearing by 8A5 a.m, that morning;

(b) Became abusive and hostile with the COUlt staff;

(c) Accused the COUlt's staff of being "rude";

(d) Demanded that the Court "resign and save the state some money";

-17~

( e) Demanded that the staff get the Court on the phone inunediately;

(f) Demanded that the Court "take care of my shit now"; and

(g) Called the Court staff an "idiot".

44. After the COUlt instructed the staff to no longer take Mr. Halburn's phone calls, he

sent an email to the staff stating that "your failure to return calls is unprofessional."

45. On Apl'il27, Mr. Halburn submitted the follOWing fraudulent letter to the Clerk of

the Supreme Court in which he impersonates a judicial official. The lotter is replinted in its

enth'ety: .

April 27, 2012 Mr. Rol'Y Perry WV Supreme COUl't Clerk Charleston. WV

I Michael J. Kelly have violated the rights of Halburn and Mark Halburn. I allowed Hemy Glass to repeatedly lied in cO\ut. I refused to allow Mark Halbu1'n to correct Glass's lies and improperly threatened to thl'OW Mark Halburn out of a confel'ence call hearing. I have repeatedly refused to correct my improper temporary order. I violated Halburn's right to a Spring Break vacation in Myrtle Beach. I am an embarrassment to the legal profession.

Therefore, I immediately vacate my tempOl'(ll), order. I award Mark Halburn the marital horne and full custody of Halburn immediately.

I then resign my position as Kanawha County Family COUltjudge due to my incompetency and a11'ogance. I agree to move to another state and never practice law or hold public office again.

Sincerely,

Michael J. Kelly

-18-

Not only is the above entirely fabricated, but it is in direct defiance of the clerk's previous

directive to not communicate with him about a case that is not pwpcrly before that COUl't.

46. On May 11, the Court entered an Order prohibiting Mr. Halburn "from having any

contact with the Court or its staff by telephone, enlail, letter, or otherwise. All filings and other

communications from him shall be in writing and filed with the Clerk and not directly to this

Cotlrt." That Order also placed him on notice that future conduct of a contumacious, vexatious,

or oppressive nature may result in contempt proceeding against him.

47. On May 14, Mr. Halburn made numerous accusations against his wife and

demanded that the COUlt "pelmanently l'emove all parenting rights to Halburn from

Dolores Halbum." He also wanted the COUlt to order that:

(a) Ms. Halbum pay him "lifetime spousal support of $3,000 per month";

(b) Ms. Halbulll pay him the standard child SUppOl't until earns his Master's

Degt'ee;

(c) Ms. Halburn purchase a home fol' him in Salisbury, North Carolina;

(d) Ms. Halbum pay his "health insurance for the remainder of [his] life" and for

"through his collegiate career, and provide fol' daycare, private school

tuition through high school, and all college and/or lmiversity tuition, books, dorm fees, et al." :

(e) Ms, Halhurn forfeit to hitn "SO percent of any pension Or social security benefits

paid to Dolores both during her lifetime and after her death";

-19-

(f) Ms, Halburn relinquish any and all rights to his assets;

(g) Mr. Glass be enjoined fmm harassing Ml'. Halburn;

(h) Mr. Glass be immediately disbarred and sanctioned; and

(i) Mt'. Glass "pay Mark Halburn $10 million for defamation of character and $100

million for intentional infliction of emotional distress".

48, Also on May 14 the Clerk of the Supreme Court warned Mr. Halburn for the

second time to refrain from contacting that COlllt.

49! On May 23 Mr. Halbum filed a "Rite of Prohibition" (sic) charging that the Court:

(a) n, . . is letting (h]is hot-air balloon sized ego ovenule his pin-sized brain";

(b) ", , . ignores reality";

(c) " , .. is anti-children, anti-fathers and anti-reality";

(d) ", , ,has refused to recuse his sony selffroln this case and has refused to step

down from the bench as he is incompetent and an embal1'aSSment to the legal profession"; and

(e) Must be \Ipermanently removed from the case and heavily financially sanctioned,"

50, On May 31, his petition for a writ of prohibition was denied.

51. On June 4. Ml'. Halburn filed an "appeal" of the denial of the writ of prohibition,

stating that the order:

(a) " .. . ignores reality . . ,";

-20-

(b) " ... is a travesty ... ";

(0) " ... is a transparent case of a retired judge abusing his authority by blatantly

covering for an incompetent judge"; and

(d) "Cummings, Glass and Kelly are not worthy of practicing law", ", .. must be

imprisoned for gross incompetency with damages paid to Mark Halburn of $10 million EACH

immediately upon receipt oftrus appeal", and "All three must be banned fJ.'Om practicing law for

life in an 50 United States, Puelto Rico, Guam and Washington, D.C.". (Emphasis in original).

52. On May 29 Mr. Halbum filed an emergency motion stating that his mother had

been placed in intensive care in a hospital in Califomia. He requested that Ms. Halburn be

ordered to transport the child to California to see the gl'andmothel'. He further demanded that co

. the COUlt order Dolores to pay for this trip and to submit to a full psychiatric exam upon her

retulTI,"

53. However, the day prior to filing his emergency motion, Mr. Halburn emailed his

wife that "My mom is too far gone f01" to visit her now. She is incoherent and might

scare Unless something changes we have missed the wonderful 0ppOltunity for

to see his grandmother and for her to enj oy him."

54. Despite Mr. Halburn'$ own email contl.adicting his motion, on or about June 4 the

Court conducted a teleconference regarding the emergency motion and Mr. Halburn was directed

to do two things: (a) submit evidence, such as a statement from a health care pl'Ovider, that his

-21-

mother still had the ability to appreciate a visit from her four year old grandson; and (b) submit a

budget for the trip detailing the costs and means of paying for the same.

55. On July 5, when Mr. Halbul'll still had not submitted either of the required

documents, his motion was denied. While Mr. Halburn now claims that he did submit a budget

to the Circuit Clerk of Putnam County he has not produced a "filed" copy and the COl1l't has not

seen one.

56. Though Mr. Halburn did not produce the documents requested regarding the

proposed visit to the grandmother. he did manage to pen a five page "Emergency Motion ~ i

Father's Day" which he sent directly to the Chief Justice on June 13 in complete defiance of the

two warnings previously issued by the Clel'k ofthe Supreme COUlt Court. In this motion he asks I

that the Chief Justice:

(a) " ... sanction Glass for his many false allegations, remove lun from this case,

disbar Glass, imprison him for life and sanction him $10 million per false allegation . . . ";

(b) Require Glass "to take out, and pay for, full page adveltisernents in the Charleston

Gazette, Charleston Daily Mail, West Virginia Record and on Putnamlive.com to apologize for

his numerous outrageously false allegations";

(c) ('Glass should be ordered to fund a Father's Rights group ... ";

(d) "Glass should be ordered to undergo a full psychiatric examination;

( e) " ... Kelly must be imprisoned and Mark and Halburn be allowed to

spend Father's Day togethee';

-22-

Cf) "Your petitioner now requests that a hearing be set for June 15,2012, at 8:00 p.m.

that vacates Judge Kelly's temporary orders, removes him from the case and permanently

removes him from the bench. Kelly must also be heavily financially sanctioned [and] he

imprisoned for the remainder of his natural life in the Moundsville prison starting at 5:00 p.m.

EDT, June 15.2012" [NB: the imprisonment is to occur three hours before the hearing];

(g) " ... appoint him[Mr, Halburn] legal counciP) (sic) at the taxpayer)s expense to

represent him "in the divorce case and any other issues stemming from such case)'~

(hY Modify the "Judicial Commission" so that it consists of a "majority of non-lawyers ... headed by Mark Halbum" and which shall vacate the decisions in this case and

instead order "Kelly's removal fl.-om said case, and his l"emoval from the bench and permanent

disbarment for gross misconduct. Kelly shall also be imprisoned and ordered to undergo a

complete mental evaluation, Any salaries paid to Kelly during his tenUt'e as a family court judge

and magistrate shall be renu'ned to the State of West Virginia to be used to create a Father's

Right's commission";

(i) Unilaterally change the election laws so that "All court judges and justices shall

serve terms of only two years and be subject to a recall vote, This term litnit shall be expanded

to include all elected officials in West Virginia, The ability to recall shall be extended to all bureaUC1'ats as well as all elected officials in West Vu-ginia"; and

G) "Judge Cummings' order dismissirig Mark Halburn's Writ of Prohibition against

Judge Kelly shall be reversed tlpOn receipt oftrus motion with Cummings' permanently disbatred

for blatantly covering the ass of incompetent Judge Michael Kelly. AU fees paid to Cummings

for his travesty order shall be returned to the State of West Virginia and issued to above-

-23-

referenced Father's Rights Commission."

57. On June 15, Mr. Halburn sent the Supreme Court clerk and the Chief Justice the

following email:

Chief Justice Ketchum:

Per our discussion earlier tonight, attached is the pleading to remove Judge Kelly from the bench and to allow me to spend Father's Day Weekend with my son. I look forward to Kelly's immediately [SiC] imprisonment so that I can publish his mugshot and let father's know that their families are now safe.

58. On June 15 and 16, Mr. Halburn sent the Chief Justice the following text

messages:

(a) "Kelly has not responded to my emergency motion to allow me visitation for

Fathers Day. I am calling on you to imprison judge Kelly"~ and

(b) "What's being done about my motion?"

59. On June 18, after Mr. Halbl.lm'S repeated violations ofthe pl'Ohibition against

frivolous and ex parte communications, the Chief Justice entered the following Order:

ADMINISTRATIVE ORnER

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

RE: VEXATIOUS AND FRIVOLOUS CONTCTS WITH COURT OFFICIALS BY MARK V. HALBURN

Mark V. Halburn is party to an ongoing action pending in the Family Court of Putnam County (Putnam County Civil Action No. 11-D-516); and

-24-

Mark V. Halburn has recently contacted the Chief Justice via personal telephone calls, e-mails, and text messages seeking, among other thingsj that the Chief Justice "imprison" the presidingjudge(s) in his pending family court action

... '" ...

Mark V. Halbum's communications are vexatious and frivolous;

All litigants in the courts of this State - including Mr. Halburn - must co~ply with the appropriate COUlt rules, none of which permit litigants to contact court officials via personal telephone calls. e-mails, or text messages; and

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that any future telephone calls, e-mails, e-mail attachments 01' text messages from Mark Halburn to court officials in this State may be disregarded; and

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that Mark V. Halburn ~ like all other litigants in this State - is required to comply with the appropriate COUlt rules with regard to pleading, practice and procedure, which require that all filings be submitted hI wl"iting to the appropriate court clerk's office in which Mr. Halbum has a pending case; and .

IT IS HEREBY ORDREb, that any further communications from Mark V. Halbum to court officials 01' employees of the COUrt system that are vexatious, frivolous, or do not comply with the terms of this order will be referred to the appropriate authorities for possible criminal prosecution.

60. In a "Motion for Recusa!, Reversal of Temp0rlHY Order and Sanctions" filed on

September 21, Mr. Halburn continued his irrational diatribes:

(a) The Court violated the child's "right to have the presence of his father in his life

on a daily basis, thereby causing probably permanent psychologlcal harm";

(b) The Court has exceeded "the bounds of common decency and common sense";

(c) The COUlt "has permanently scatted the reputation of fairness and irnpaltiality of

the West Virginia judiciary";

Cd) In perhaps his most outrageous invective, Ml'. Halburn writes that "Judge Kelly

sat back and allowed :Mrs. Halburn to die without seeing her grandson, in 2012. He should be

ordered to revive her and pay for hip to Califomia to see her at Kelly's personal

expense." (Emphasis added); and

C e) Mr. Halburn demands to be allowed "to return to the marital home immediatelY"

or "be provided the settlement funds of $60,000 upon receipt of this motion".

61. Mr. Halburn's demand that the Court be ordered to revive his deceased mother

establishes beyond cavil that Mr. Halburn's personality disorder cannot be controlled and that it

presents a real, elevated and incl'easing risk to safety and well-being as his grip on

reality deteriorate.

62. On September 29, in direct defiance of the Supreme Court's Administrative Order,

Mr. Halburn sent the following email to the Administrative Director of the Supreme COtllt in

which he admits to hearing "voices":

Subject: Potential threat

While taking photos of today' s Poca Heritage Days event, a male voice came up behind me and said something to the effect of, "If you need someone to take care of Watkins or Kelly for you, just let us know ... " I don't know if that means cooking them homemade cheesecake or a threat of violence. When I turned around, all I saw was numerous people of both genders milling around. I asked, "Did someone just talk to me?" and only received blank stares ... I never saw the person, and do not recognize the voice. I am deaf in my right ear with a constant ringing noise (because of past infection) and have a tough time distinguishing

-26-

which side of me sounds are corning from because of "the bounce" effect. While I have a hearing aid device I do not weal' it around crowds because it makes all of the noise rather irritating.

Rest assured I WILL NOT be publishing this as I do not want to encourage any nuts out there to do anything illegal 01' harmful-even to judges that I do not like. I am not filing a police report because it can be acquired through FOIA. You are the ONLY person I am revealing this to for obvious reasons.

Similarly, I do not publish the phone numbers and addresses of elected officials, candidates, and law enforcement officers-even when such information is part of election filing documents and public records. I will not make it easy for ANYONE to harm anyonel

If you want to call me to discuss this further, feel free. I will AL WAYS try to do the right thing. However, there really isn't anything more to say. I just wanted you to be aware of the situation. It happened rIght after the parade When I was walking north on Route 62 towards the school parking lots.

Obviously I will NEVER ask anyone to "take care" of anybody in any sort of harmful and illegal way.

63. Also in September 2012, while attending the mandatory parent education class

required of all divorcing parents, Mr. Halbul'Jl became irrate at the content of the video that is palt

of the curri~ulum. He demanded the right to address the class and told the class instructor that

she was "o~t of line" for not permitting him to speak. The instructor left the class to find a deputy and Mr. Halburn was soon escOlied from the premises.

64. Subsequent to trial, counsel submitted their recommended findings offact and

conclusions of law. In addition to his CO'\.lnsel's submission, Mr. Halburn filed his own pro se. In

it, he states:

(a) "Because petitioner, Dolores, admitted in COUlt, that she conceived years

-27-

after she knew the marriage was over, she must pay respondent [Mr. Halburn] $3,000 per month,

alimony, until he passes away";

(b) "Respondent, Mark Vance Halburn, is free to relocate. with to any of the

50 United States without permission or consultation of Dolol'es";

(c) i He should be awarded "full and complete custody. Petitioner Dolores is limited to

one weekend pei' month of supelv!sed visitation as she did not complete the court-ol'dered

psychological exam. She must pay for supervision fees"; and

(d) Henry Glass is not allowed to be within 1,000 miles of due to Glass's

lies in court and psychotic behavior."

65. On October 3, two weeks after the trial was concluded, Mr. Halburn filed a

"Motion for contempt" requesting that Ms. Halburn "be declared in CONTEMPT OF COURT,

imprisoned, and her parenting rights to be terminated."

66. On November 7, he filed a second contempt action accusing Ms. Halburn of

"control-freak mental disabilities" and "outrageous and threatening behavior". He again

demanded that she be imprisoned and her parentall'ights terminated.

67. On November 16 he filed a third contempt action demanding that Ms. Halburn's

parental rights be "permanently terminated". (Emphasis in original).

68. On November 21 he filed a fourth contempt action.

-28-

69. Finally, on November 26 Mr. Halburn filed a pro se motion for attorney fees and

expenses. In this motion he argues:

(a) (The failure of this marriage is primarily the fault ofPetitioncl', caused by her

repeated and consistent abusive, demeaning, demanding, controlling and obnoxious behavior~

which continues today";

(b) "Respondent's fees are considerably greater than is typical, due to the vexatious

litigation tactics of Petitioner and her lawyer throughout these proceedings. It is obvious that

attorney Henry R. Glass, III, proceeded with these tactics primarily to increase his fees and

personal profit. These tactics include his many false allegations and gross misconduct. The court

should require Hemy Glass to pay the legal fees of both parties, be disbarred, and pay Respondent

$10 Billion in punitive damages. Glass repeatedly deceived the court, using false allegations, in

order to' improperly resttict the respondent from parenting time. The COUlt should also require

Glass to reinstate evelY lost moment oftime between Respondent and his son, Glass

should further be admitted, for the remaindel'of his life, to the mental ward of a West Virginia

State Prison of the choosing of the court. Glass must pay the state for the cost of his mental

treatment and incarceration. Glass must also take out full page advertisements in every West

Virginia news publication-daily through December 31 , 2012, apologizing to l'espondent for the

gross misconduct of Glass in this case"; and

(c) "Respondent's reasonable fees and expense to date exceed $6,000. The largest

reason. for this is the custody battle over the couple's only child, Petitioner admitted on

the witness stand that she knew the marriage was over years ago-long before was

conceived. Yet she chose to bring a child into the world and, taking audacious to a new high,

-29-

using false allegations, wl'Ongly convinced the court to grant her primary custody, child support,

and, most recently, is demanding Respondent pay her outrageous legal fees. Such a stunt should

not be awarded."

70 . . Based on all of the above, the Comt finds as fact and, pursuant to W.Va. Code 48-

9-206(a), concludes as a matter of law that it would be manifestly harmful to for his

father to have any parenting time beyond that set fOlth in Paragraph 17 supra. Mr. Halburn's

personality disorder has in the past, and much more likely than not will in the future, put

at an increased risk of harm caused by third patties reacting to Mr. Halbum's belligerent,

obnoxious and provoking behavior. He simply is incapable of controlling himself. Mr. Halburn

may return to COUlt when the child l'eaches the age of ten and is better able to protect himself

from his father's tirades (e.g. by using a phone to call his mother) andlor Mr. Halbum has

completed a i'egimen of psychotherapy, as recommended by Dr. Hudson, designed to augment his

ability to c

another public area mutually agreed upon by the parties and which has surveillance cameras.

IV. ALLOCATION OF DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY

73. Mr. Halburn's documented personality disorder a.lso necessitates that Ms. Halburn

have sole and exclusive decision making authority over except in medical emergencies

when the child is in his care.

74. As an example of how Mr. Halbum's personality disorder inte~{eres with the

provision of services to the COUlt heru:d credible evidence that M1'. Halburn has made i I

enraged, r~de, dis1'espectful and excessively demanding phone calls to day care provider, a facility that was chosen by Ms. Halburn.

75. Mr. Halburn's behavior was threatening to the extent that a personal protective

order was issued in favor of the provider's owner and against Mr. Halburn.

76. In response to the order entered against him, M1'. Halburn has accused the day care

owner of "slanderous accusations and psychotic behavior" and demanded that the owner Hmust

not be allowed within 1,000 miles of He called the owner a danger to who

engages in '~erratic; mentally unstable behavior."

77. Based on his behavior as set fOlth above, it is obvious that Mr. Halburn will seek to

-31-

disrupt the services of any provider who does not tolerate his conduct and. for that reason, joint

allocation of decision making responsibility is not in the child's best interests, nor is it in

best interest that his father have equal access to the child's medical and educational

records. Unless his access is lestricted, there is no doubt that Mr. Halburn will bully, degrade and

infuriate evby pl'Ovider with whom he disagrees 01' who has refused to accommodate his odious

and malicious conduct.

78. Consistent with the above. Ms. Halbum may limit 01' eliminate Ml". Halburn's

0ppOltunities to accompany, visit 01 call at any day care center, pre-school, school.

church, doctor's office or other service provider.

79. Mr. Halburn retains the right to make emergency medical decisions for

while is in his care and Ms. Halburn is not present.

V. EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION "

80. Petitioner and her mother acquired a home in Hmricane, Putnam County, West

Virginia, in 1992. Mr. Halburn's name is not on the deed. The parties resided in the home from

April 2000 until March 2012. Neither party had the property appraised for this litigation.

81. It is undisputed that during the course of the marriage marital funds were used to

pay down the principal amount ofthe mortgage on the horne by $16,000.

~32-

82, Mr. Halburn seeks one-half of the difference between the amount left on the

mortgage at the time of separation and the asking price" of the home, which is now on the market

for sale. There is no SUppOlt in law for this method of assigning value and he cites none.

83. Mr. Raburn also seeks reimbursement for $12,750 in "improvements". The list I

submitted, however, includes such items as "photos of $500", "Back room entertainment

centel' $500", and " swing set $50011 , which clearly are not improvements to the realty

and did not increase its value. In any case, no credible opinion, expert or otherwise, was given as

to the increase in value to the home as the result of any legitimate "improvement" and the Court

declines to speculate.

84. Mr. Halbum likewise demands that he be reimbursed for half of the taxes paid on

the home during the course of the marriage. This argument fails to consider that he lived in the

home for twelve years and enjoyed all the benefits connected therewith,

85. ! Based on the above, and as an incident to the allocation of custodiall'esponsibility

set fOlih above, Ms. RalbUln is awarded sole and exclusive possession of the marital home and

any interest Mr. Halburn may claim in the home is terminated. For purposes of equitable

distribution~ the home is assigned a value of$16,OOO, which is the reduction in the principal

amount of the mOltgage over the course of the malTiage.

86. Mr. Halburn started and built PutnarnLive.com during the coUrse of the marriage.

This internet based business was the parties' prime soUt'ce of income and is clearly a marital asset.

The only value put upon the business at trial was $25,000, which was an offer of purchase that

:Mr. Halburn refused a few years ago. The business is awarded to Mr. Halburn as his sole property

and for purposes of equitable distribution it is assigned a value 0[$20,000 to account fot any

diminishment in value since the offer of purchase was made. It should be noted that at one point

Mr. Halburn responded to an inquity of purchase with an "asking" price of$250,000.

87. Petitioner shall have exclusive use, possession and ownership of the 2010 Nissan

Sentl'ft and Respondent shall similarly enjoy the 2010 Hyundai Elantra. Each party shall be responsible for the debt on the vehicle in herlhis possession. For purposes of equitable

distribution, the Nissan is assigned a net value of $2,000 and the Hyundai is assigned a net value

of $4,000.

88. Each party shall retain all personal propelty currently in her/his possession. For

purposes of equitable distribution~ the property retained by Ms. Halburn is assigned an excess

value of$l,500 above the value orMr. Halburn's property.

89. The parties did not accumulate any debt in both of their names. Subsequently, Ms.

Halbutn shall be responsible for all marital debt in her name, totaling approximately $8,800, and

Mr. Halburn shall be responsible for aU marital debt in his name, which is approximately the same

amount. Each party is responsible for her/his OWn student loan debt.

-34-

90. The parties are directed to prepare, sign and file amended state and federal 2011

tax retw'os. Mr. Halbum shall be responsible for the estimated $900 owed as a result of the

anlended returns. Ms. Halbul1l shall be responsible for the tax debt owed to the State of

California in the amount of $363.46.

91. Distribution of assets and debts as set forth above results in a net marital estate of

$42,236.54, of which $23,100 is awarded to Mr. Halbul'll and $19,136.54 is awarded to Ms.

Halburn. The cash payment owed by Mr. Halburn to Ms. Halbul'n to equalize their one-half

interest in the marital estate is $1,981.73. That amount shall be paid on or before Apdll, 2013.

VI. MISCELLANEOUS

92. Neither party has made a rational demand for alimony or spousal support from the

other party, and, therefore, each pruty shall be forever precluded froin making 8. claim for the same

against the other.

93. Petitioner is restored to her maiden name of Dolores Jean Maltin.

94, Respondent is enjoined and restrailled from communicating in any manner with

Petitioner except as reasonably necessary concerning parenting of the child or in case of an

emergency involving the child. At all times Respondent shall refrain from all communication

-35-

designed to harass or annoy Petitioner.

VII. ATTORNEY FEES

95. Ms. Halburn has filed a petition seeking an award of attorney fees and costs in the

amount of$10,435.85.

96. W.Va. Code 48-1-305(a) states that "Costs may be awarded to either party as

justice requires ... ".

97. W.Va. Code 48-1-305(c) governs the award offees and costs expended because

of another party's vexatious litigiousness:

When it appears to the COUlt that a party has incurred attorney fees and costs unnecessarily because the opposing party has asserted unfounded claims or defenses for vexatious, wanton or oppressive purposes, thel'eby delaying or divelting attention from valid claims or defenses asserted in good faith, the court may order the offending party, or his or her attorney, or both, to pay reasonable attorney fees and costs to the other party.

98. Here an award of costs and fees is authorized by W.Va. Code 48-1-305(a) and (c)

due to much of the fees incurred by Ms. Halburn being a result of Mr. Halburn' s vexatious,

wanton and oppressive conduct during the cOUrse of this litigation.

99. Once a statutory foundation for the award of fees in a palticular matter has been

-36-

identified, an award of fees and costs rests within sound discretion of the coult. Banker v,

Banker, 196 W.Va, 535,474 S.E. 2d 465 (1996).

100. In Banker, the COUlt articulated the "wide array of factors" that must be considered

in determining whether to award fees and costs: (1) the petitioning party's ability to pay his or her

own fee; (2) the beneficial results obtained by the attomcy; (3) the pruties' respective financial i

conditions; (4) the effect of the attorney's fee on each party's standard of living; (5) the degree of

fault of either party making the action necessary; and (6) the l'easonableness of the attorney and

fee request. Banker, 196 W.Va. 550-51.

If the "reasonableness" of a fees request is at issue, the Banker Court directed that

reference be made to the traditional 12 factor test for determining reasonableness first enunciated

in Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Pitrolo, 176 W.Va. 190,32 S,E. 2d 156 (1986):

"The reasonableness of attorney's fees is generally based on broad factors such as: (1) the time and labor involved; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions; (3) the skilll'equisite to peliorm the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attomey due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the results obtained; (9) the experi~nce, reputation and. ability of the attorneys; (10) the undesirability of the

. I

case; (11) the nature and length of the pl'ofessionalrelationship with the client; and (12) awat'ds in similar cases."

Each of these factors will be addressed below.

'101 . The party's ability to pay her OWn fee: Ms. Halhurn has the ability to pay a portion

of her fees.

-37-

102. The beneficial results obtained by the attorney: Petitioner prevailed on each majol'

issue,

103. The parties' respective financial conditions: The parties are roughly equal in their

respective financial condition.

104. The effect of the attorney's fees on each party's standard ofliving; Petitioner's

standard of living will be decreased tremendously if she must be responsible for payment of all of

her attomey fees and costs which were incurred due to the vexatious conduct of Mr. Halburn.

105', The time and labor required: Numerous pl'oceedings were held in this matter, many

as a result of Mr. Halburn's filings.

106. The novelty and difficulty of the questions, and the skill requisite to pelfOlm the

legal service properly: Due to the extent and nature ofMr. Halburn's conduct, any case in which

he is a party requires skilled and tenacious counsel.

107. The preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case:

This case required more than average availability and litigation skills since Mr, Halburn can

always be counted on to turn the simple into the complex and launch a full scale verbal assault on

any and all persons who disagl'ee with him.

108. The custornslY fee: In this case, the hourly rate requested of $175 pel' hour is

extremely reasonable.

109. Time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances: Other than the

standard deadlines involved in a divOl'ce case, there were no other relevant time limitations in this

case.

110. The amount involved and the results obtained: Petitioner' s attorney achieved

success on each issue.

111. The experience, reputation. and ability of the attome~: Both Petitioner and

Respondent were repl'esented by competent, experienced counsel, who regularly appear in Family

Court for complex cases.

112. The undesirability of the case: This case must considered highly undesirable given

Mr. Halburn's conduct.

113 . rhe nature and length of the professional relationship with the client: This factol' is

not applicable in this case.

114. Awards in similar cases: While it is rare for this Court to award fees, when the

. standards set forth in W.Va. Code 48-1-305 have been met an award of fees should be and

usually is entered.

115. A reduction in the amount of fees requested is warranted since Ms. Halburn would

have incurred fees and costs of at least $2,500 even absent Mr. Halburn's conduct.

116. Ms. Halburn is hereby AWARDED fees and costs in the amount of$7,935.85 and

Mr. Halburn shall be the same by Aprill, 2013.

Based upon the Fjndings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth above, it is, therefore,

ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the mal'l'iage heretofore celebrated and eXisting between the

parties be, and the same is hereby dissolved, and that the parties be and they are hereby and

forever divorced from each other and the bonds of matrimony under the terms, conditions, rights

and obligations set forth above.

Th~ Clel'k ofthis COUlt shall send a cel1ifiedcopy of this Order to each party upon its ently as follows and to the BU1'eau of Child Support Enforcement:

Hemy R. Glass, Esq. (Counsel for Petitioner) 5215 MacCorkle Avenue, SW South Charleston, 'WV 25309

Michael S. Bailey, Esq. (Counsel for Respondent) P. O. Box 347 Barboursville, WV 25504

And it appearing to the COtl1t that there is nothing further to be done in this cause at this

time, it is ORDERED that the same be omitted from the docket of this Court.

Pursuant to W.Va. Falnily Court Rule 22(c), you are hereby notified that this is a

Final Order. Any party may file ft motion for reconsideration of this Final Order as

~40-

provided in W.Va. Code Sl-2A-IO. Any party aggrieved by this Final Order may take an

appeal either to the Circuit Court or directly to the West Virginia Supreme Court of

Appeals. A petition for appeal to the Circuit Court may be fIled by cithe!' party within

thirty (30) d~ys after entry of this Final Order. In order to appeal directly to the Supreme

Court of Appeals, both parties must file, 'Within fourteen (14) days after entry of this Final

Order, a jo'int notice of intent to appeal and waiver of right to appeftl to circuit court.

ENTER thiSUt\d day of January, 2013.

Mike Kelly, Family Couh Judge

,

I

ENTERED JAN 23 2Dil

di'\ PAGE - -

\ Id3 \ 13 (C:bL~ H G\Q(2Q mB~