Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
8~ 50
Rnd
MARK VANCE HALBURN, Respondent.
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-
The Petition was filed in this action in November 2011. The Respondent
3.
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.
5.
or a member of the armed forces of the United States of America or any of its allied nations.
6.
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-
7.
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.
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 ..
1L
immediately. All payments shall be made to the Bureau for Child Support Enforcement, Post
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
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.
16.
parties' child,
17.
The primaty dispute in this case is the allocation of custodial responsibility for the
who is five years of age.
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
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.
with Hudson ForensIc Psychology who was chosen and paid for by Mr. HalbulU. Dr. Hudson
found, in pertinent part, as follows:
Mr. Halburn reported having a "turbulent" childhood with a mother who "had a
(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)
"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)
Ct
behaviol'."
Most importantly, while noting that Mr. Halbm'n likely poses no direct threat of
(0)
physical harm to
intelperso~al
cautioned
conflicts present an increased risk ofhal'm to the child. Specifically, Dr. Hudson
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)
Axis V:
-7-
(g)
2.
20.
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:
Axis II:
Axis ill:
Axis IV:
Axix V:
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.
22.
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
of bodily harm caused by others or, if Mr. Halbtlm is arrested yet again. might result in the child
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.
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
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.
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-
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
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-
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
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
The ruling caused the child to suffer "probably permanent psychological harm";
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
The COUlt "must be ordered immediately pay for a beach trip" (sic) for the child;
(g)
(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)
(b)
(c)
"The Judge should walk away and find another line of work and I can email him
(e)
39.
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~
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)
(b)
of a
full-time father";
(c)
Calls Mr. Glass, Ms. Halburn's attorney, "bizarre, anti-social and malicious.
(d)
(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-
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)
(1) ,
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)
(b)
(c)
43.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(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)
(g)
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
COUlt
Halburn from
to order that:
(a)
Ms. Halbum pay him "lifetime spousal support of $3,000 per month";
(b)
Degt'ee;
(c)
(d)
Ms. Halbum pay his "health insurance for the remainder of [his] life" and for
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)
(g)
(h)
(i)
Mt'. Glass "pay Mark Halburn $10 million for defamation of character and $100
48,
Also on May 14 the Clerk of the Supreme Court warned Mr. Halburn for the
49!
On May 23 Mr. Halbum filed "Rite of Prohibition" (sic) charging that the Court:
(a)
n, . .
(b)
(c)
(d)
", , ,has refused to recuse his sony selffroln this case and has refused to step
is letting (h]is hot-air balloon sized ego ovenule his pin-sized brain";
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,
51.
On June 4. Ml'. Halburn filed an "appeal" of the denial of the writ of prohibition,
(b)
(0)
" ... is a transparent case of a retired judge abusing his authority by blatantly
"Cummings, Glass and Kelly are not worthy of practicing law", ", .. must be
imprisoned for gross incompetency with damages paid to Mark Halburn of $10 million EACH
immediately upon receipt oftrus appeal", and "All three must be banned fJ.'Om practicing law for
life in an 50 United States, Puelto Rico, Guam and Washington, D.C.". (Emphasis in original).
52.
On May 29 Mr. Halbum filed an emergency motion stating that his mother had
been placed in intensive care in a hospital in Califomia. He requested that Ms. Halburn be
ordered to transport the child to California to see the gl'andmothel'. He further demanded that co
. the COUlt order Dolores to pay for this trip and to submit to a full psychiatric exam upon her
retulTI,"
53.
However, the day prior to filing his emergency motion, Mr. Halburn emailed his
54.
Despite Mr. Halburn'$ 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
" ... 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)
(d)
(e)
Halburn be allowed to
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
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 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-
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)
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:
-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
...
'" ...
60.
The Court violated the child's "right to have the presence of his father in his life
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
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
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
reality deteriorate.
62.
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 ALWAYS 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 ofall 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.
conclusions of law. In addition to his CO'\.lnsel's submission, Mr. Halburn filed his own pro se. In
it, he states:
(a)
years
after she knew the marriage was over, she must pay respondent [Mr. Halburn] $3,000 per month,
alimony, until he passes away";
"Respondent, Mark Vance Halburn, is free to relocate. with
(b)
to any of the
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)
due to Glass's
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,
66.
be terminated."
67.
68.
69.
Finally, on November 26 Mr. Halburn filed a pro se motion for attorney fees and
(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 489-206(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<;mtrol himself and avoid the conflicts which he ourrently creates and revels in.
71. :
In addition to his regular parenting time as delimited in this Order, Mr. Halburn
may have ~e child in his care from noon to six p.m. on the following days: the child's birthday;
the father's birthday; Easter; Father's Day, Thanksgiving Day; and Christmas Day. He may also
telephone the child every Thursday at 6 p.m. for ten minutes on a phone which he is to ptovide
and pay fOJ:.
72.
All exchanges of the child shall occur at the Hurricane Police Department or in
-30-
another public area mutually agreed upon by the parties and which has surveillance cameras.
Mr. Halburn's documented personality disorder a.lso necessitates that Ms. Halburn
73.
74.
provision of services to
the COUlt heru:d credible evidence that M1'. Halburn has made
i
I
day care
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
who
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
Mr. Halburn retains the right to make emergency medical decisions for
79.
while
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-
Mr. Halburn seeks one-half of the difference between the amount left on the
82,
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.
Mr. Raburn also seeks reimbursement for $12,750 in "improvements". The list
83.
I
swing set $500 11 , 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. !
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
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
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
93.
94,
emergency involving the child. At all times Respondent shall refrain from all communication
-35-
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
97.
W.Va. Code 48-1-305(c) governs the award offees and costs expended because
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
case; (11) the nature and length of the pl'ofessionalrelationship with the client; and
(12) awat'ds in similar cases."
I
'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'
103.
The parties' respective financial conditions: The parties are roughly equal in their
issue,
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
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
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
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
113 .
rhe nature and length of the professional relationship with the client: This factol' is
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
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
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
~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'i nt notice of intent to appeal and waiver of right to appeftl to circuit court.
ENTERED
JAN 23 2Dil
di'\
,
- PAGE-
\ Id3 \ 13
(C:bL~
H G\Q(2Q
mB~