In Re K.E. & K.E., 809 S.E.2d 531

Twins K.E. & K.E. born April 2016 tested positive for drugs; DHHR placed them with foster parents C.G. and K.G., who also cared for their half-brother T.N.
Parental rights of mother R.E. and father E.N. were terminated in December 2016 due to drug use and failure to rehabilitate.
Paternal grandparents (M.D. and D.D.) sought permanent placement; DHHR adoption unit conducted a home study and recommended grandparents; guardian ad litem recommended the foster parents.
Circuit court awarded permanent placement to the grandparents in April/May 2017, citing deference to blood relatives and the children's youth.
Record showed grandparents owned the house where the biological parents lived two doors down and had regular access; grandparents had limited prior contact with the twins before seeking placement.
Supreme Court of Appeals reversed, finding the grandparent preference misapplied given the biological parents’ proximity/access and the strong foster-parent bond; remanded for gradual transition to foster parents.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the statutory grandparent preference required placement with grandparents	Grandparents: statute presumes grandparents are preferred if home study approves; placement is appropriate	Foster parents/DHHR opposition: best-interest analysis can overcome preference only with record showing it's not best	Court: Grandparent preference is not absolute; must be weighed with child's best interests and can be overcome by record evidence
Whether grandparents’ home was unsuitable because biological parents lived/used the home	Foster parents: proximity/access of terminated parents (two doors away, use of grandparents’ phone/home) risks contact and undermines safety	Grandparents/DHHR: grandparents were approved foster/adoptive home and guardians to half-sister; DHHR had verbally warned grandparents to limit contact	Court: Undisputed proximity/access of terminated parents made permanent placement there contrary to twins’ best interests
Whether the court failed to consider continuity and foster bond with C.G./K.G.	Foster parents: they cared for twins from birth, formed bonding and provided hospital care; disruption would harm infants’ development	Grandparents/DHHR: grandparents are suitable and blood relatives; grandparent preference favors them	Court: Circuit court gave insufficient weight to continuity of relationships; twins’ early formative bonds favor gradual placement with foster parents

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W. Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (W. Va. 1996) (standard of review for bench-tried abuse and neglect cases)
Napoleon S. v. Walker, 217 W. Va. 254, 617 S.E.2d 801 (W. Va. 2005) (explains grandparent preference and requirement that DHHR/courts analyze child’s best interests)
In re Elizabeth F., 225 W. Va. 780, 696 S.E.2d 296 (W. Va. 2010) (reversed grandparent placement where grandmother failed to shield children from negative influences of adult family members)
In re Hunter H., 227 W. Va. 699, 715 S.E.2d 397 (W. Va. 2011) (reiterates best-interest primacy despite relative-placement preferences)
In Interest of Carlita B., 185 W. Va. 613, 408 S.E.2d 365 (W. Va. 1991) (importance of continuity and the first three years of life in custody decisions)