In Re: L.H. and In Re: I.H.
17-0102 & 17-0103
| W. Va. | Nov 7, 2017Background
- DHHR filed abuse-and-neglect petitions for two infants (L.H., b.2010; I.H., b.2014) after Mother tested positive for multiple drugs at I.H.’s birth and admitted drug addiction; I.H. suffered withdrawal.
- L.H. had lived largely with non-related caregivers C.F. and H.F. (“Standing Grandparents”); Father 1 (biological father, lived in Arizona) had regular contact, paid support, and sought custody; no allegations were made against Father 1.
- DHHR placed I.H. with her paternal grandmother (Grandmother) and L.H. with Standing Grandparents; Father 1 obtained a positive ICPC home study in Arizona and visited L.H. there.
- Standing Grandparents produced a 2013 handwritten note from Father 1 granting them authority to make medical/financial decisions; Father 1 testified he intended it only for emergency decisionmaking and never relinquished custody; he refused to sign adoption consent.
- The circuit court found Standing Grandparents were psychological parents, declined to place L.H. with Father 1, and instead entered orders awarding permanent subsidized guardianship to Standing Grandparents (L.H.) and Grandmother (I.H.), with visitation for parents; Mother and Father 1 appealed.
- The Supreme Court of Appeals reversed as to (1) Mother’s parental rights (terminated based on Rule 11(j) updates and lack of progress) and (2) custody of L.H. — holding custody should be with the fit, non-offending biological father (Father 1) and remanding for a transition and visitation plan preserving contact with Standing Grandmother.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mother’s parental rights should be preserved | Mother sought reunification after completing treatment | DHHR and others argued relapse/no contact; no reasonable likelihood of correction | Mother’s parental rights terminated (no reasonable likelihood conditions would be corrected) |
| Whether Father 1 relinquished custody by the 2013 handwritten "standing grandparent" note | Standing Grandparents: the note transferred guardianship/authority and evidenced relinquishment/abandonment | Father 1: note was limited (emergency medical decision authorization), he never intended permanent transfer and repeatedly sought custody | Court held note did not effectuate relinquishment; presumption of temporary transfer sticks; Father 1 did not relinquish parental rights |
| Whether Standing Grandparents’ psychological-parent status justified awarding them custody over a fit biological parent | Standing Grandparents: they were psychological parents, primary caretakers, and child bonded to them; removal would harm child | Father 1/DHHR/Guardian: biological parent’s fundamental rights prevail absent unfitness; Father 1 is fit and had positive home study | Court agreed Standing Grandparents were psychological parents but held biological father’s rights prevailed; custody awarded to Father 1, with ordered reasonable visitation for Standing Grandmother and transitional plan |
| Whether circuit court erred by granting permanent subsidized guardianship placements | Mother/Father1/DHHR/Guardian: circuit court erred in awarding permanent subsidized guardianship instead of placing L.H. with fit Father 1 and addressing Mother’s status by termination | Standing Grandparents/Grandmother: order was proper given child’s longstanding placement and bond | Court reversed the subsidized guardianship result as to L.H., remanded for transition and visitation planning; affirmed termination of Mother’s rights to both children |
Key Cases Cited
- Overfield v. Collins, 199 W. Va. 27 (1997) (sets formalities/rules for parental transfer of custody and presumption that ambiguous transfers are temporary; burden on third party to prove permanent transfer by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Clifford K., 217 W. Va. 625 (2005) (defines psychological parent and limits that status relative to biological/adoptive parental rights)
- In re Visitation & Custody of Senturi N.S.V., 221 W. Va. 159 (2007) (explains scope and limits of psychological-parent doctrine and cautions against over-extension)
- Whiteman v. Robinson, 145 W. Va. 685 (1960) (articulates natural parent’s prima facie right to custody unless unfitness or relinquishment shown)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (recognizes fundamental liberty interest of parents in care, custody, and control of their children)