A West Virginia Father Warned the Court His Children Were Being Abused.
The Court Took His Children Instead.
Inside a Jefferson County custody case that exposes deep failures in family court oversight
By Father’s Advocacy Network
January 27, 2026
He Did Everything the System Tells Fathers to Do
When Ronald Earle, a father of three young daughters in Jefferson County, West Virginia, raised concerns about possible abuse, he followed the rules.
He documented injuries.
He sought medical evaluations.
He reported concerns to Child Protective Services.
He cooperated with a court-appointed Guardian ad Litem.
He complied with every court order.
And yet, over the course of a two-year custody battle, the family court did not intervene to protect the children.
Instead, the court ultimately removed the children from their father’s custody—despite sworn medical testimony, documented evidence, and recorded admissions that contradicted the court’s findings.
This is the story of what happened inside Jefferson County Family Court, under Judge David Camilletti, and why this case is now headed toward the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.
The Case at a Glance
Father: Ronald Earle
Location: Jefferson County, West Virginia
Children’s ages at start of proceedings: 2, 3, and 5
Presiding judge (initial proceedings): Judge David Camilletti
Court-appointed Guardian ad Litem: Pamela Games-Neely
Timeline: January 2023 – February 2024 (ongoing appeals)
West Virginia is a 50/50 custody-by-default state.
This case did not begin with allegations against the father.
It began with concerns about the children’s safety.
Medical Professionals Raised Alarms
Multiple medical providers examined Earle’s children after custody exchanges.
Their findings were not ambiguous.
According to sworn testimony and medical records:
Injuries were described as linear bruising and patterned broken skin
Providers stated the injuries were consistent with being struck by an object
One medical professional testified injuries appeared “diagnostic of physical abuse”
Providers made mandatory reports to CPS
Law enforcement was contacted
These findings were not introduced by rumor or speculation.
They were presented through medical examinations, photographs, and testimony under oath.
The Guardian ad Litem Who Never Observed the Father With His Children
Despite the gravity of the allegations:
The Guardian ad Litem interviewed the father once
She never observed him with his children
She received recordings, photographs, text messages, and videos
She acknowledged, on audio recording, that certain conduct “crossed the line”
She later submitted reports that contradicted those admissions
Court filings and recordings show that key disclosures made by the children—including admissions that they were being hit in the head—were not included in formal Guardian ad Litem reports submitted to the court.
In later proceedings, the Guardian ad Litem admitted she had not conducted required investigative steps outlined in West Virginia family court rules.
A Judge on Probation Presided Over the Case
At the time he presided over most of this case, Judge David Camilletti was not in good standing.
Court records show:
Judge Camilletti had been suspended and placed on probation
He was disciplined by the Judicial Investigation Commission of West Virginia
The discipline followed years of complaints
Public records reflect findings of judicial misconduct
Despite this, Judge Camilletti continued to issue rulings that shaped the lives of three minor children.
When Reporting Abuse Became Grounds for Losing Custody
One of the most disturbing elements of this case is what happened after reports were made.
Despite testimony that CPS investigations were incomplete—and in some instances never even investigated—the court’s final findings repeatedly stated:
“All allegations were unsubstantiated.”
This conclusion was reached despite CPS testimony acknowledging that:
Medical records were never reviewed
Investigations were incomplete
Reports were not completed
Under West Virginia law, false reporting can be grounds to rebut 50/50 custody.
In this case, the court treated documented, medically supported reports as if they were knowingly false.
The result:
The father lost custody.
Why This Case Matters Beyond One Family
This is not just about one judge.
It is not just about one Guardian ad Litem.
It is not just about one father.
This case exposes a systemic problem:
Medical evidence ignored
Guardian ad Litem authority unchecked
Judicial findings contradicting the record
Procedural rules bypassed
No accountability when allegations are proven false—or true
When family courts punish parents for reporting harm, children learn that silence is safer than truth.
What Comes Next
Ronald Earle’s case is now moving through appellate review.
Future reporting will examine:
The Guardian ad Litem’s conduct and disciplinary investigation
Ex parte filings that triggered armed law-enforcement intervention
Allegations later admitted to be false—without consequence
Judicial findings copied directly from one party’s proposed order
How children’s voices were filtered, reframed, or erased
This is Part One of a multi-part investigative series.
If you are a parent navigating family court
If you have been punished for telling the truth
If medical concerns were dismissed
If “best interest of the child” became a slogan instead of a standard
You are not alone.
And this story is not over.
