In re N.A., 227 W. Va. 458

J.G. (Appellant Father) and the DHHR challenge a May 21, 2010 circuit court order assigning custody of M.P. to the maternal grandparents, while keeping M.P. in a context where J.G. had no prior knowledge of paternity until 2010.
A prior abuse/neglect petition (Aug. 27, 2009) involved the children in the home of the maternal grandparents and their daughter (the children's mother, T.P.), with allegations of domestic violence in the presence of the children.
The circuit court initially placed the four children with the maternal grandparents but retained legal custody with DHHR and ordered supervised contact with the mother.
Adjudication (Sept. 29, 2009) found neglect by the mother; the grandparents were repeatedly found to have violated court orders regarding visitation with the mother.
DNA testing (Feb. 22–25, 2010) established J.G. as M.P.’s biological father; the court held him as an intervenor and later proceeded to the dispositional hearing.
At the May 21, 2010 disposition, the court (i) recognized the grandparents as psychological parents but (ii) granted them a post-adjudicatory improvement period of ninety days with conditions, and (iii) limited custody in a way that favored the grandparents over J.G. for custody of M.P.; the court also noted failed home study and concerns about the grandparents’ compliance with orders. The court’s decision is reversed and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether J.G. has a fundamental right to custody of M.P. despite no abuse or neglect findings against him.	J.G. is the natural parent with a fundamental right to custody.	Grandparents contend considerations of best interests and prior nonparent custody arrangements may justify limits.	Reversed; grant of custody to J.G. required; remand for new proceedings.
Whether the post-adjudicatory improvement period placing custody with the grandparents was lawful where neglect occurred.	DHHR argues no likelihood the grandparents can correct neglect; continuation of custody undermines permanency.	Grandparents argue psychological parent status supports post-dispositional period.	Reversed; remand for expedited proceedings to determine best permanent plan.

In re Willis, 157 W.Va. 225, 207 S.E.2d 129 (1973) (natural parental right is fundamental but not absolute and may be terminated for unfitness)
Honaker v. Burnside, 182 W.Va. 448, 388 S.E.2d 322 (1989) (child’s interest and natural parental right balanced against state interest in welfare)
In re Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (clear factual findings required; abuse/neglect determinations are reviewable under clearly erroneous standard)
McCormick v. Allstate Ins. Co., 197 W.Va. 415, 475 S.E.2d 507 (1996) (abuse of discretion standard for final order with clearly erroneous factual findings)
In re Brandon Lee B., 211 W.Va. 587, 567 S.E.2d 597 (2001) (guides standard for reviewing best interests and parental rights in abuse/neglect cases)
In re Beth Ann B., 204 W.Va. 424, 513 S.E.2d 472 (1998) (standard of review and best interests in child custody cases)
In re Jonathan G., 198 W.Va. 716, 482 S.E.2d 893 (1996) (preservation of sibling relationships and continued association when in best interests)
In re Elizabeth F., 225 W.Va. 780, 696 S.E.2d 296 (2010) (grandparent preference not dispositive; must still serve child’s best interests)