Judge David Camilletti: Due Process Failures in a West Virginia Child Custody Case
Jefferson County Family Court | West Virginia
This post documents procedural failures, statutory violations, and due process concerns arising from rulings issued by Judge David Camilletti, formerly of the Jefferson County Family Court in West Virginia, in a contested child custody matter involving allegations of child abuse, discovery violations, and guardian ad litem misconduct.
The purpose of this post is not to litigate emotion or motive—but to examine the record, the law, and the procedural irregularities that occurred while Judge Camilletti presided over the case.
Background: The Case Context
Jurisdiction: Jefferson County Family Court, West Virginia
Parties: Father of three minor children (ages 2, 3, and 5 at initiation of proceedings)
Presiding Judge: David Camilletti
Case Type: Divorce and custody proceedings in a default 50/50 custody state
Timeline: January 2023 – February 2024
At the time Judge Camilletti presided over the case, he was under judicial probation following disciplinary action by the West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission.
Procedural Issue #1: Acceptance of a Fraudulent Ex Parte Motion
What Occurred
Judge Camilletti:
Voided a valid Domestic Violence Protection Order (DVP) issued by a magistrate
Simultaneously accepted an ex parte motion alleging:
Sexual misconduct
Immediate and irreparable harm
Claims later admitted by the guardian ad litem to be not jointly filed and not believed
As a result:
Law enforcement was dispatched to the father’s residence
Minor children were present
No evidentiary hearing preceded enforcement
Due Process Concerns
No sworn testimony supported the ex parte allegations
No evidence was filed with the motion
The guardian ad litem later admitted under oath the claims against the father were not true
Procedural Issue #2: Refusal to Conduct a Court-Ordered DVP Hearing
What Occurred
After appeal:
A Circuit Court Judge (Judge Hammer) found Judge Camilletti committed plain error to dismiss the DVP
Judge Hammer ordered a DVP hearing to be conducted
Judge Camilletti:
Refused to conduct the hearing
Stated repeatedly on the record: “We are not here for the DVP. I don’t want to hear about it.”
Legal Implication
Failure to hold a court-ordered hearing constitutes:
A due process violation
Defiance of a superior court’s directive
Denial of the right to be heard on matters involving constitutional protections
Procedural Issue #3: Ignoring Mandatory Guardian ad Litem Filing Deadlines
Statutory Requirement
West Virginia law (including Rule 48-9-301(c) and the Rules of Practice and Procedure for Family Court Appendix B) requires:
Guardian ad litem reports to be filed at least 10 days prior to a final custody hearing
Absent good cause stated on the record, no hearing may proceed
What Occurred
The guardian filed a report 4 days prior to the October 23, 2023 Hearing.
The guardian ad litem filed no report for the January 17th, 2024 Final Hearing
The guardian ad litem filed retaliatory report less than 24 hours before continued February 2024 Final Hearing
No good cause was stated
counsel objected on the record over this violation
Judge Camilletti:
Proceeded anyway
Attempted to “bifurcate” custody from financial issues to bypass the statutory requirement
Procedural Issue #4: Refusal to Enforce Discovery Rules
What Occurred
Opposing counsel admitted under oath to:
Incomplete discovery
False interrogatory responses
Evidence later confirmed:
Misrepresentation of income
Undisclosed property interests
Violations exceeding statutory discovery deadlines
Judge Camilletti:
Imposed financial sanctions against the compliant party, rewarding fraud by opposing counsel
Took no action against the party who violated discovery rule
Accepted contradictory statements without findings
Procedural Issue #5: Adoption of Proposed Findings Without Independent Review
What Occurred
The court issued final findings of fact that:
Were verbatim copies of one party’s proposed findings
Contained identical grammatical and numerical errors
Directly contradicted sworn testimony from CPS and medical professionals
Record Conflict
Despite testimony confirming:
CPS investigations were not unsubstantiated
Medical professionals found injuries diagnostic of abuse
The final order repeatedly stated:
All allegations were “unsubstantiated by CPS”
Medical professionals denied any concern
Pattern Summary
Across multiple hearings, Judge Camilletti :
Accepted unsworn allegations from the GAL
Refused mandatory hearings
Ignored statutory filing deadlines
Penalized compliance while excusing violations
Adopted one party’s narrative wholesale
Disregarded medical and CPS testimony on the record
These actions collectively raise serious due process concerns in a matter involving the safety and custody of minor children.
Why This Matters
Family court rulings are insulated from public scrutiny—yet their consequences are permanent.
When judges:
Bypass procedural safeguards
Ignore statutory mandates
Shield misconduct through silence
Children and parents bear the cost.
This post is part of an ongoing series documenting systemic failures in family court proceedings and the real-world impact of unchecked judicial discretion.
