CHARLESTON – A father is seeking $2 million in damages from an attorney he claims served as his children’s guardian ad litem without completing mandatory training, misrepresented her qualifications and used her court-appointed authority to retaliate against him over political opposition and personal criticism.
Timothy C. Dunlap II filed his complaint September 30 in Kanawha Circuit Court against Morgan Switzer.
In the complaint, Dunlap says Switzer failed to accurately convey his children’s wishes during custody proceedings that restricted his parenting time and allowed the children to move to Ohio with their mother. Dunlap, who is representing himself, requests a jury trial, $1 million in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages along with reimbursement of guardian fees and other relief.
The complaint builds on what Dunlap describes as newly established facts following the dismissal of his earlier Kanawha Circuit Court lawsuit against Switzer, including a September family court order addressing her qualifications and a replacement guardian’s assessment of her handling of the case. Dunlap also sued Switzer in federal court, which also was dismissed in February.
According to the new complaint, Kanawha Family Court Judge Brittany Ranson Stonestreet entered an order September 18 finding Switzer had not completed the guardian ad litem training required by the state’s family court rules and was not among the attorneys approved to serve in that role. Dunlap’s complaint says the judge also found Switzer’s appointment did not conform to the training requirement and that none of her fees qualified for payment through the state Supreme Court.
Dunlap alleges Switzer knew her own training history but accepted the appointment, submitted reports, testified, made custody recommendations and sought compensation without disclosing the qualification issue.
“Defendant did not merely accept a title,” the complaint states. “She performed services and charged the private parties for those services.”
The complaint says the September order identified at least $1,756 in billing for services from December 29, 2024, through February 20, 2025, and referenced an additional asserted outstanding balance of $1,871 against Dunlap. The total amount billed, paid or sought remains subject to an accounting and discovery, according to the filing.
Dunlap alleges Switzer’s service as guardian became entangled with her 2024 campaign for Kanawha County prosecuting attorney. He says he publicly opposed her candidacy and supported an opposing candidate.
The complaint describes an April 4, 2024, email in which Switzer discussed Dunlap’s sharing of an endorsement received by her opponent and his criticism of her. According to the complaint, she also referenced her reputation, law license and election while discussing additional steps she intended to seek through a motion.
A May 3, 2024, communication allegedly connected concerns about Dunlap’s political and social media activity with Switzer’s unwillingness to recommend a different parenting schedule. Dunlap alleges she discussed information she was providing to the secretary of state and said she would apply additional pressure as time went on.
Later that month, according to the complaint, Switzer sought a continuance, an admonishment of Dunlap and his incarceration for up to 10 days over an asserted failure to purge contempt. Her proposed order allegedly cited Dunlap’s Facebook activity on posts uploaded by Switzer’s mother concerning the campaign.
“Plaintiff does not allege that every disagreement, adverse recommendation, or filing by Defendant was tortious merely because it was adverse to him,” the complaint states. Instead, Dunlap alleges Switzer’s writings and filings tied “personal and political grievances to the exercise of GAL authority and to requests for judicial action affecting Plaintiff.”
He contends that using custody and contempt proceedings to pressure him over political speech, criticism or Switzer’s professional interests served a purpose unrelated to a neutral investigation of the children’s best interests.
The complaint also relies on a report from replacement guardian ad litem J. Rudy Martin, who interviewed the children after Switzer’s removal.
In a response submitted during subsequent Supreme Court proceedings, Martin said both children independently expressed dissatisfaction with Switzer’s handling of their wishes.
“Both minor children expressed frustration and, anger even, that their desires as expressed to Ms. Switzer were ignored and even misrepresented to the former Court,” Martin wrote. “Both minor children independently volunteered that they believed Ms. Switzer had not been truthful with them.”
Martin reported that both children wanted to return to West Virginia and live with their father while maintaining contact with their mother. Following interviews with Martin and Stonestreet, the judge placed the children with Dunlap in West Virginia and established visitation with their mother in Ohio, according to Martin’s response.
Dunlap alleges Switzer failed to accurately disclose the children’s custody preferences or presented them inaccurately. His complaint cites guardian guidelines requiring disclosure of a child’s wishes unless doing so would jeopardize the child’s safety. He alleges Switzer did not invoke that exception or request separate counsel because the children’s wishes conflicted with her assessment of their best interests.
Martin also criticized Switzer’s refusal, at one point, to convey the older child’s preference on the grounds that she had learned it through attorney-client communications. He called that position “nonsensical” and said it rendered the guardian’s role meaningless in the proceedings.
After reviewing the earlier proceedings, Martin said he found no evidence of domestic violence or aggressive or improper behavior by Dunlap toward the children, despite assertions used to justify restrictions.
“Those recommendations and decisions appear to have actually been driven by personal animosity and designed as retaliation,” Martin wrote.
The new complaint expressly characterizes that statement as Martin’s independent assessment, not a judicial finding. Dunlap argues it supports his allegation that the challenged conduct was not neutral, child-focused decision-making.
The West Virginia Intermediate Court of Appeals directed Switzer’s replacement in its Nov. 21, 2025, custody decision. As recounted in the complaint, the appellate court found more than a “hint of a conflict of interest” between Switzer and Dunlap and concluded the family court abused its discretion by refusing her request to withdraw and denying Dunlap’s requests to remove her.
Stonestreet relieved Switzer of her duties December 4, 2025, and appointed Martin later that month. Martin’s response says Switzer filed her appeal December 22 after she had been removed. He argued she no longer had authority to seek relief on the children’s behalf and urged the state Supreme Court to dismiss the appeal.
In an April 27 motion requesting more time to complete the appeal, Switzer cited the extensive record, her two-person firm and legal issues she described as potentially affecting the state’s family court system.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal August 19, granting Dunlap’s motion to dismiss. It denied as moot his other pending motions and Switzer’s request for additional time. The order did not explain the specific basis for dismissal or make additional findings about her conduct.
Dunlap’s earlier lawsuit against Switzer was dismissed February 13, 2025, and that the ICA affirmed that dismissal December 4, 2025. The new complaint says the earlier case included criminal-statute and constitutional theories, intentional infliction of emotional distress, spoliation and an asserted standalone violation of guardian guidelines.
The new lawsuit asserts seven counts covering alleged fraud and misrepresentation of qualifications, fraudulent concealment, a statutory claim involving the exercise of purported official authority, abuse of process, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty and fraud upon the court. Several are pleaded as alternative theories, and the fraud-upon-the-court count seeks declaratory or equitable relief rather than serving as an independent basis for damages.
Dunlap claims the September findings concerning Switzer’s training and approval status materially distinguish the new action from the earlier case. He acknowledges the circuit court must determine whether the prior judgment bars any of his claims.
The complaint also anticipates an immunity defense based on Switzer’s court-appointed role. Dunlap asks the court to examine each challenged act separately, arguing that alleged concealment of qualifications, compensation-related fraud and use of proceedings for political or personal purposes should not automatically receive the protection afforded legitimate guardian functions.
He alleges Switzer’s conduct contributed to lost parenting time, disruption of his relationship with his children, guardian fees, litigation expenses and emotional distress. He says the action seeks damages for his own injuries, not separate damages belonging to the children, and does not ask the circuit court to alter the current parenting plan.
When asked for comment, Switzer provided a statement to The West Virginia Record.
“Throughout my practice in the last few years, I have discovered that the legal system can become a weapon in the hands of some. Unfortunately, our imperfect system can open the door for abusers or bad actors to cloak intimidation, harassment, or coercive control in a veil that looks like legitimate legal action.
“With or without an attorney, a determined individual can abuse and exploit the legal process to drag another person through an exhausting and overwhelming cycle of baseless accusations, pleadings, hearings, and needless conflict that wastes valuable time in court.
“I am thankful that I am a licensed attorney and a resilient woman, and for the family, friends, and colleagues that build me up so that I can handle all types of conflict with poise.
“I am confident that my experiences will shed light on the devastating reality of legal process abuse and the crushing emotional and financial toll it can have on those forced to endure it – especially those who lack the resources, support, or strength to fight back alone.
“Please note, I continue to stand by each and every finding and recommendation I made in this particular case but hope that all parties can move forward and thrive despite the years of contentious litigation.”
Kanawha Circuit Court case number 26-C-1188
