In re P.F., 848 S.E.2d 826

Background

In May 2019 DHHR filed for emergency custody of a two‑month‑old (P.F.); the child was placed in foster care. Mother had documented mental‑health and substance issues; Grandmother had been living in the home earlier.
Grandmother filed to intervene (Oct. 8, 2019), asserting she is the maternal grandmother, has an approved DHHR home study, completed required pre‑service classes, is capable of caregiving, and sought placement (or visitation).
The circuit court held a non‑evidentiary hearing and denied intervention by order (Jan. 7, 2020), but granted supervised weekly visitation and directed DHHR to consider Grandmother for temporary placement. The court’s order did not explain why placement was denied.
After the circuit order, parental rights were terminated and the permanency plan was adoption by foster parents; Grandmother appealed the denial and lack of an explanation addressing the grandparent‑preference statutory best‑interest analysis.
The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for an expedited evidentiary hearing to allow Grandmother, DHHR, and the GAL to address whether the grandparent preference was overcome and whether placement with Grandmother is in the child’s best interest.

Issues

Issue	Grandmother's Argument	DHHR / GAL Argument	Held
Right to a "meaningful opportunity to be heard" under §49‑4‑601(h)	Grandmother argued she qualified (asserted preadoptive parent status) and thus deserved the statute's protections	DHHR/GAL: she did not fit any category (not a custodial parent, relative caregiver, or proven preadoptive parent)	Court: she did not fit statutory categories; circuit court did not err in denying the statutory hearing right
Right to intervene based on grandparent preference statute (§49‑4‑114(a)(3))	Grandmother: grandparent preference and approved home study should have led to placement or at least intervention to protect placement rights	DHHR: statute gives grandparents first consideration for adoption but does not create an automatic right to intervene or immediate placement	Court: statute does not by itself grant a right to intervene; nevertheless placement is the dispositive issue and must be decided on best interests
Application of grandparent preference and adequacy of circuit court findings	Grandmother: Napoleon S. presumes grandparent placement is in child’s best interest; court made no finding that presumption was overcome despite approved home study	DHHR/GAL: raised unspecified concerns and factual objections (e.g., prior custody loss, husband’s status) that could defeat placement	Court: grandparent preference is presumptive; because objections were not developed in circuit record and Grandmother had no opportunity to respond, remand for evidentiary hearing is required to determine if presumption is overcome
Remedy: is an evidentiary hearing required?	Grandmother: needed chance to rebut DHHR/GAL concerns and to litigate placement	DHHR/GAL: not every grandparent is entitled to a hearing; other remedies available	Court: not automatic in all cases, but an evidentiary hearing is warranted here (approved home study + unexplained denial); remand for expedited hearing and findings on best interests

Key Cases Cited

Napoleon S. v. Walker, 217 W. Va. 254, 617 S.E.2d 801 (W. Va. 2005) (establishes grandparent preference presumption and requirement that DHHR/court analyze best interests before declining placement)
In re Elizabeth F., 225 W. Va. 780, 696 S.E.2d 296 (W. Va. 2010) (discusses grandparent preference where parental rights terminated)
In re Aaron H., 229 W. Va. 677, 735 S.E.2d 274 (W. Va. 2012) (adoptive placement with grandparents must serve child’s best interests upon full record review)
In re Hunter H., 227 W. Va. 699, 715 S.E.2d 397 (W. Va. 2011) (grandparent preference considered alongside child welfare principles)
In re K.E., 240 W. Va. 220, 809 S.E.2d 531 (W. Va. 2018) (confirms the grandparent preference is not absolute)
In the Interest of Carlita B., 185 W. Va. 613, 408 S.E.2d 365 (W. Va. 1991) (abuse and neglect cases require expedited resolution; high priority)
Nichols v. Nichols, 160 W. Va. 514, 236 S.E.2d 36 (W. Va. 1977) (custody decisions lie within trial court’s sound discretion)
Carter v. Carter, 196 W. Va. 239, 470 S.E.2d 193 (W. Va. 1996) (best interests of the child is paramount in custody matters)