In Re: Guardianship of A.C.
807 S.E.2d 271
| W. Va. | 2017Background
- A.C., a child whose mother died of a heroin overdose in her presence, lived with grandmother A.H. after the death; godmother E.B. (Florida) and father K.W. (recently released from prison) both sought/consented to guardianship arrangements.
- E.B. produced a 2012 temporary guardianship agreement signed by the mother and quickly traveled from Florida after the mother’s death; the guardian ad litem (Petitioner) recommended placement with E.B.
- The DHHR investigated, found no substantiated maltreatment, and had limited involvement; the Petitioner identified multiple concerns about A.H.’s household (alcohol/drug use, driving intoxicated, prior DUIs, prior presence of a registered sex offender).
- At the circuit hearing, an in-camera interview showed A.C. (age 11–12) preferred living with E.B. and reported safety concerns about A.H.’s home; the circuit court nevertheless awarded guardianship to A.H., citing family proximity and the father’s written preference.
- On appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed, finding the circuit court failed to give appropriate weight to Guardianship Screening Factors and the child’s best interests, and remanded with directions to award guardianship to E.B. and arrange an expedited, ICPC-compliant transition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether circuit court erred in awarding guardianship to grandmother | GAL: Award to A.H. ignored substantial evidence of unfitness; E.B. is better for child’s best interests | Circuit court: Family placement in Martinsburg is less disruptive; father preferred A.H. in writing; distance to Florida burdensome | Reversed: court abused discretion; best interests and screening factors favor E.B.; remand to appoint E.B. guardian |
| Whether court applied Guardianship Screening Factors properly | GAL: Court undervalued factors (convictions, substance abuse, presence of sex offender) showing A.H. unfit | Court relied on lack of DHHR substantiation and remediation (sex offender moved out) | Held for GAL: Screening Factors require serious consideration; record shows A.H. unsuitable |
| Whether the child’s expressed preference should be considered | GAL: A.C.’s clear, articulated preference (safety, prior residence with E.B.) is entitled to weight | Court minimized preference due to age and emphasis on local permanence | Held for GAL: Child’s mature preference was persuasive in best-interest analysis here |
| Whether guardian ad litem should have been appointed for incarcerated father | GAL: Better practice to appoint GAL for father to protect his procedural rights | A.H./court: Father’s written preference made GAL unnecessary; no prejudice shown | Held: Appointment would have been better practice but father was not prejudiced; no reversal on this ground |
Key Cases Cited
- McCormick v. Allstate Ins. Co., 197 W. Va. 415, 475 S.E.2d 507 (W. Va. 1996) (standard of review: abuse of discretion for ultimate disposition; clearly erroneous for facts)
- Funkhouser v. Funkhouser, 158 W. Va. 964, 216 S.E.2d 570 (W. Va. 1975) (custody discretion not disturbed absent abuse; erroneous legal application reversible)
- In re Abbigail Faye B., 222 W. Va. 466, 665 S.E.2d 300 (W. Va. 2008) (statutory guardianship priorities and best-interests requirement)
- In re Antonio R.A., 228 W. Va. 380, 719 S.E.2d 850 (W. Va. 2011) (courts have discretion in appointing guardians under § 44-10-3)
- Garska v. McCoy, 167 W. Va. 59, 278 S.E.2d 357 (W. Va. 1981) (child under 14 but mature may have persuasive custody preference)
- Kristopher O. v. Mazzone, 227 W. Va. 184, 706 S.E.2d 381 (W. Va. 2011) (gradual transition to a new home favored for child’s best interests)