In re K.L. and R.L., 826 S.E.2d 671

Background

DHHR removed siblings R.L. (≈5) and K.L. (infant, drug-exposed) for abuse/neglect; parents’ rights were terminated and DHHR was given permanent custody.
Foster parents cared for both children during proceedings; both children made developmental progress in that placement (especially K.L.; R.L. improved but has severe separation anxiety and developmental delays).
Paternal uncle and aunt (living ~15 hours away in Michigan) sought permanent placement/adoption; DHHR obtained ICPC home study approving them.
At permanency hearing, DHHR and Guardian favored continuing placement with foster parents due to R.L.’s fragility and attachment; circuit court awarded custody to uncle and aunt based on a supposed “blood relative” preference.
Supreme Court of Appeals granted stay of transfer, reviewed statutory scheme, and reversed—holding only grandparent and sibling preferences exist; remanded to place children with foster parents as promoting best interests.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a general "blood relative" placement preference exists in adoption/permanency after termination of parental rights	Petitioners: No such general relative preference; only grandparents/siblings are statutorily preferred	Circuit court/Uncle & Aunt: DHHR policy and several statutes show a preference for placing children with blood relatives	No. Only two familial preferences exist: grandparents and sibling placement; no general blood-relative preference applies
Whether circuit court properly relied on W. Va. Code § 49-4-604/§ 49-4-608/§ 49-4-302 to require relative placement	Petitioners: Those statutory provisions do not mandate a blood-relative preference for the disposition actually used (permanent DHHR guardianship/adoption path)	Circuit court: Read various sections and DHHR policy to support preferring relatives	Court: Circuit court misapplied statutes; the cited provisions either did not apply to the dispositional subsection used or govern different circumstances; reliance was erroneous
Whether best interests were properly evaluated when awarding custody to uncle/aunt	Petitioners: Record shows foster placement better serves children—R.L.’s attachment, regression after visits, and uncle/aunt’s limited ongoing contact	Uncle/aunt: As relatives approved for adoptive placement, their custody promotes family ties and should be preferred	Court: Best-interests inquiry controls; evidence (R.L.’s severe anxiety, regression after visits, and uncle/aunt’s subsequent lack of contact) favored foster parents; placement with foster parents is required
Whether DHHR policy or federal considerations create a binding preference for relatives	Petitioners: Policy/federal guidance require consideration, not a presumption of placement with relatives	Uncle/aunt/court below: Policy indicates preference for relative placement	Court: DHHR policy/federal funding do not create a statutory preference; relatives must be considered but are not presumptively preferred

Key Cases Cited

In re Tiffany Marie S., 196 W. Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (standard of review for abuse-and-neglect bench findings)
Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W. Va. 138, 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
In re Willis, 157 W. Va. 225, 207 S.E.2d 129 (1973) (welfare of the child is paramount in custody decisions)
Napoleon S. v. Walker, 217 W. Va. 254, 617 S.E.2d 801 (2005) (grandparent preference exists but is tempered by best-interests analysis)
Kristopher O. v. Mazzone, 227 W. Va. 184, 706 S.E.2d 381 (2011) (DHHR policy cannot create a general blood-relative placement preference)
In re K.E., 240 W. Va. 220, 809 S.E.2d 531 (2018) (reaffirming that no general blood-relative preference exists)
In re Elizabeth F., 225 W. Va. 780, 696 S.E.2d 296 (2010) (grandparental adoption permitted only if in child’s best interests)
James M. v. Maynard, 185 W. Va. 648, 408 S.E.2d 400 (1991) (sudden changes in custodians are traumatic; sibling contact should be preserved when in best interests)