Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court affirming the order of the family court granting Grandparents' petition for visitation over the objection of Mother, holding that Mother's arguments could not properly be assessed because the family court failed to set forth sufficient findings of fact or conclusions of law explaining its ruling.The family court granted Grandparents' petition for visitation, and the circuit court affirmed. The record in this matter, however, only consisted of a report from the guardian ad litem. On appeal, Mother argued (1) the grandparent visitation factors set forth in W. Va. Code 48-10-502 weighed against visitation under the circumstances, and (2) the family court erred in failing to give special weight to her wishes concerning the care of the child. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case to the family court for further proceedings, holding that the circuit court erred in affirming the order of the family court because the family court failed to make specific findings of fact regarding the statutory grandparent visitation factors and failed to explain why Mother's interest in making decisions regarding the care of the child was outweighed by the child's interest in having a continuing relationship with Grandparents. View "Meagan S. v. Terry S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the final order of the circuit court granting scheduled visitation with C.B., who was adopted by Petitioners when he was five years old, to Respondents, with whom C.B. lived before the adoption but to whom C.B. was not related, holding that Respondents did not have standing to petition the circuit court to modify their alleged post-adoption agreement and that such an agreement did not exist in this case.When Petitioner became C.B. guardian, the family court granted Respondents visitation with C.B. The visitation continued after the adoption, but after the parties quarreled, Petitioners reduced the visitation. Respondents subsequently petitioned for visitation. The circuit court granted the petition, relying on Respondents' pre-adoption relationship with the child and the child's best interests. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Petitioners' adoption of C.B. severed Respondents' visitation with the child; and (2) because the adoption order did not provide for visitation between Respondents and C.B., an agreement among the parties regarding post-adoption visitation did not exist. View "Murrell B. v. Clarence R." on Justia Law

In this abuse and neglect case the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the circuit court's dispositional order placing three children in the legal and physical custody of the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR), holding that the circuit court erred by not terminating Mother's and Father's parental rights.Upon finding that Mother and Father were unable to adequately care for their three children the circuit court entered a final dispositional order placing the children in the custody of the DHHR. The guardian ad litem and DHHR appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred by not terminating the parents' parental rights. The parents also appealed, contending that the circuit court failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. 1901 to -1923. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the circuit court for entry of a dispositional order terminating Mother's and Father's parental rights, holding (1) there was no violation of the ICWA in this case; and (2) the best interests of the children required termination of Mother's and Father's parental rights pursuant to W. Va. Code 49-4-604(b)(6). View "In re N.R." on Justia Law

In this abuse and neglect proceeding the Supreme Court reversed the dispositional order of the circuit court giving primary custody of two children to Father following his successful completion of an improvement period, holding that the circuit court failed to give proper consideration to the custodial, decision-making and limiting factors set forth in W. Va. Code 48-9-206, 207, and 209.In awarding primary custody to Father the circuit court found that the award was in the children's best interests based upon their preference to reside with Father and the court's conclusion that Father provided a more stable environment for the children. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the matter for consideration of the appropriate statutory factors, holding that the circuit court erred in deferring to the children's purported preference, as expressed by third parties, to reside with Father because the court failed to give due consideration to the factors set forth in section 48-9-206, 207, and 209 in making its custodial allocation. View "In re T.M." on Justia Law

In this termination of parental rights proceeding the Supreme Court vacated the verbal ruling of the circuit court regarding Parents' rights to A.A. and affirmed the portions of the court's order terminating the parental rights to Z.A., S.A. and J.A.-2, holding that the court erred when it did not perform a best interests analysis with regard to the disposition of Parents' rights to A.A. and by failing to enter a dispositional order that addressed A.A.The circuit court terminated Parents' parental rights to Z.A, S.A., and J.A.-2 on the basis of physical and educational neglect. As to Parents' two other children, J.A.-1 and A.A., the circuit court made a verbal ruling to leave intact parents' rights but did so without having performed any analysis of these children's best interests. Further, the court failed to enter a dispositional order fo J.A.-1 and A.A. J.A.-1 reached the age of majority during the appeal period and was no longer a subject of the abuse and neglect case. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the circuit court's termination of parental rights as too Z.A., S.A., and J.A.-2, holding that there was no error on the part of the circuit court; but (2) vacated the ruling leaving intact parents' rights to A.A., holding that remand was required for further proceedings. View "In re J.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court that terminated Mother's parental rights to her infant son, J.C., holding that the circuit court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to terminate Mother's parental rights.After an adjudication hearing, the circuit court found that J.C. was neglected and deemed abandoned as an aggravating factor. A dispositional hearing was held and then continued. The hearing reconvened and then was continued a number of times due to Mother's failure to appear. Eventually, the circuit court entered an order terminating Mother's parental rights. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to resolve the abuse and neglect petition because there was no evidence to show that any of the subject matter requirements of W. Va. Code 48-20-201(a) were satisfied. View "In re J.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the circuit court determining disposition of Petitioner's child without first allowing him a meaningful opportunity to be heard at the dispositional hearing, which resulted in the child being placed in the legal and physical custody of guardians, holding that Petitioner must be afforded a full and complete opportunity to present witnesses and to testify on his own behalf.Petitioner was the father of one child and the stepfather of the other child. The dispositional order at issue on appeal granted Petitioner a disposition in which parental rights were not terminated but the children were placed in the care, custody, and control of the guardians. On appeal, Petitioner argued that the circuit court erred when it divested him of his rights to parent his child without first allowing him a meaningful opportunity to be heard. The Supreme Court agreed and remanded the case for the limited purpose of affording Petitioner an opportunity to be heard at the dispositional hearing, which the circuit court had previously denied Petitioner, holding that the circuit court erred when it determined disposition regarding his child without first allowing him a meaningful opportunity to be heard at the dispositional hearing. View "In re T.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the "order of permanent placement" entered by the circuit court awarding custody of two children to Uncle and Aunt, holding that the circuit court erred in concluding that, as a matter of law, there exists, in the abuse and neglect context, a relative preference other than the preference afforded to grandparents and siblings.In selecting Children's Uncle and Aunt to be the children's permanent custodians, the circuit court determined that a "blood relative" preference exists in addition to the statutory preferences afforded to siblings and grandparents in abuse and neglect proceedings. Foster Parents appealed, arguing that there does not exist a preference for relatives in addition to the grandparent and sibling preferences established by the legislature. The Supreme Court agreed and remanded this case for entry of an order permanently placing the children with Foster Parents, holding (1) the circuit court erred by finding there exists a blood relative preference and relying on that preference as a basis for placing the children with Aunt and Uncle; and (2) the best interests of the children would best be promoted by allowing them to remain in Foster Parents' home. View "In re K.L." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's order that affirmed a family court order denying the petition for modification filed by Mother seeking to relocate with her children to Kentucky, holding that the lower courts did not properly apply the provisions of W. Va. Code 48-9-403 when denying Mother’s petition to relocate with her children.The family court denied Mother’s request for relocation, and the circuit court upheld the denial. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for entry of an order granting Mother’s petition for modification and establishing a new parenting plan, holding (1) the lower courts committed reversible error when they failed to consider evidence of caretaking functions when calculating custodial responsibility; and (2) because the unrebutted evidence showed that Mother’s relocation was legitimate and in good faith, the lower courts clearly erred in denying Mother’s request. View "Nicole L. v. Steven W." on Justia Law

In this negligence case, the Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court denying the motion to dismiss filed by the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources petitioners (DHHR Petitioners), holding that the DHHR Petitioners were entitled to qualified immunity.Respondents filed a complaint against the DHHR alleging that the DHHR negligently failed and refused to pursue subsidized guardianship for the infant in this case and negligently failed to take appropriate action in the best interest of that infant to obtain permanency and a final disposition. Respondents further alleged that, due to the DHHR’s failure, they were forced to hire counsel and file a petition for guardianship and that the infant was unjustly denied a monthly subsidy for ten years due to the actions of the DHHR Petitioners. The circuit court denied the DHHR Petitioners’ motion to dismiss, finding that qualified immunity did not bar Respondents’ claims. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that no basis for piercing the DHHR Petitioners’ qualified immunity existed. View "West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources v. V.P." on Justia Law