In re S.C., 20-0816

Background

Child (born 2010) lived with maternal great‑grandparents for ~7 years after mother’s methamphetamine addiction; father (Petitioner) moved to Florida in 2014 and had minimal contact.
Petitioner filed for custody in 2019; family‑court drug tests and testimony triggered a DHHR abuse-and-neglect petition against both parents.
Petitioner stipulted to neglect at adjudication, completed an improvement period, and developed regular visitation; evaluators found him capable of parenting.
The guardian ad litem, therapist, CPS worker, and great‑grandparents all recommended the child remain with the great‑grandparents; DHHR vacillated and eventually recommended reunification with Petitioner.
The circuit court found the great‑grandparents should have been named custodians and that the child’s best interest was to remain with them, but nevertheless terminated Petitioner’s parental rights under WV Code § 49‑4‑604(c)(6).
The Supreme Court of Appeals reversed: termination under disposition 6 lacked the required statutory findings and the court remanded with directions to enter disposition 5 and appoint the great‑grandparents guardians, with further proceedings to establish visitation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether statutory grounds for termination (disposition 6) were met	Petitioner: termination was erroneous because he remedied conditions, completed improvement period, and poses no ongoing risk	DHHR/great‑grandparents: Petitioner refused the proposed lesser plan and showed lack of insight; permanency requires termination	Court: Reversed termination—record lacked findings that conditions cannot be corrected and that termination was necessary; remand to enter disposition 5 (guardianship)
Whether Petitioner was denied due process by appearing via videoconference during COVID‑19	Petitioner: video appearance denied meaningful opportunity to be physically present and fully heard	DHHR: video permitted full participation; courts were following pandemic guidance	Court: No due process violation—Petitioner had opportunity to testify, counsel was present in court, and video was reasonable under circumstances
Whether the circuit court improperly compelled a DHHR witness (CPS worker) to contradict agency recommendation	Petitioner: court abused discretion by questioning the witness before counsel and pressuring inconsistent testimony	DHHR/great‑grandparents: court may question witnesses and probe basis for agency recommendation	Court: No abuse—court is factfinder, may call/examine witnesses, and questioning was proper to determine child’s best interest
Whether great‑grandparents should have been treated as pre‑petition custodians and afforded protections	Great‑grandparents/guardian: they were primary caregivers and should have been named custodians and supported to preserve the family unit	DHHR: failed to name them initially and later advocated reunification with Petitioner	Court: Agreed they should have been named; DHHR should have offered services to preserve the child’s stable placement and the court directed guardianship on remand

Key Cases Cited

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W. Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (standard of review; guidance on improvement periods and findings)
In re Katie S., 198 W. Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (1996) (primary goal in abuse/neglect cases is child’s health and welfare)
State ex rel. Cash v. Lively, 155 W. Va. 801, 187 S.E.2d 601 (1972) (welfare of the child directs custody discretion)
In re J.S., 233 W. Va. 394, 758 S.E.2d 747 (2014) (custody principles; best‑interest standard)
In re B.H., 233 W. Va. 57, 754 S.E.2d 743 (2014) (dispositional standard; improvement‑period compliance is only one factor)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (due process protections before terminating parental rights)
In re T.S., 241 W. Va. 599, 827 S.E.2d 29 (2019) (procedural due process in termination proceedings)
In re A.P.-1, 241 W. Va. 688, 827 S.E.2d 830 (2019) (purpose of dispositional phase; court duties to determine permanent placement)