In re H.W., 875 S.E.2d 247

Mother previously lost parental rights to two older daughters; those daughters were adopted by their paternal grandparents (the petitioners/foster parents here).
Mother tested positive for methamphetamine during pregnancy with H.W.; DHHR filed an abuse-and-neglect petition, removed newborn H.W., and placed her with the Foster Parents.
Mother stipulated to the petition, was adjudicated abusive/neglectful, and received (and completed) a post-adjudicatory improvement period that the court extended; H.W. remained with the Foster Parents about 17 months.
In May 2021 the Foster Parents moved to intervene; the court allowed their attorney to monitor and participate but denied full intervenor status and, at disposition, found Mother had substantially complied with services and ordered reunification, citing COVID-related service delays as a statutory exception to mandatory timelines.
Foster Parents appealed the denial of intervention (and separately argued the court should have terminated Mother’s rights); the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of intervention and held Foster Parents, as nonparties, could not properly challenge the disposition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Foster Parents were entitled to intervene (statutory right or permissive) under W. Va. Code § 49-4-601(h) and Faircloth	Foster Parents: time-in-care limits triggered rights under Faircloth; thus they were entitled to intervene (or at least full participation).	DHHR/Mother: statutory exceptions (service delays, COVID) excused mandatory timelines; Foster Parents lacked pre‑petition custodial status; they were given a meaningful opportunity to be heard via monitoring.	Court: de novo review of whether a "meaningful opportunity" was afforded and abuse-of-discretion review of participation level; statutory exceptions applied, Foster Parents were not entitled to intervention as a matter of right, denial affirmed; monitoring permitted.
Whether the court erred by reunifying H.W. with Mother instead of terminating parental rights and keeping H.W. with Foster Parents	Foster Parents: 15+ of 22 months in foster care and sibling placement favored keeping H.W. with them and terminating Mother’s rights under time-limit statutes.	DHHR/Mother/Guardian ad Litem: Mother substantially complied; COVID-related lapses justified statutory exceptions; reunification served H.W.’s best interests.	Court: Foster Parents lacked standing as nonparties to challenge disposition; circuit court found reunification in H.W.’s best interests given Mother's compliance and exceptions; intervention denial affirmed.

State ex rel. C.H. v. Faircloth, 240 W. Va. 729, 815 S.E.2d 540 (W. Va. 2018) (foster parents have right to intervene when statutory time limits indicate termination is imminent)
Dunlap v. State Comp. Dir., 149 W. Va. 266, 140 S.E.2d 448 (W. Va. 1965) (plain statutory language must be applied according to legislative intent)
SWN Prod. Co., LLC v. Conley, 243 W. Va. 696, 850 S.E.2d 695 (W. Va. 2020) (standards of review for permissive intervention in civil cases; used as guidance for hybrid standard)
In re Jonathan G., 198 W. Va. 716, 482 S.E.2d 893 (W. Va. 1996) ("custodial" for intervention means custody existing before initiation of abuse-and-neglect proceedings)
In re B.H., 233 W. Va. 57, 754 S.E.2d 743 (W. Va. 2014) (dispositional decisions governed by the child's best interests)