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.