In Re: S.H., 16-1126

DHHR filed an abuse and neglect petition in July 2014 alleging parental substance abuse and domestic violence concerning S.H.; petitioner (father J.H.) stipulated to neglect in September 2014.
The circuit court granted post-adjudicatory and dispositional improvement periods; those were extended but later revoked due to petitioner’s positive drug tests and October 2015 arrest for heroin possession and related conduct.
At the January 2016 dispositional hearing petitioner, after consultation with counsel and under oath, stated he voluntarily relinquished his parental rights; the court questioned him and explained he could be denied visitation and had no control over adoption.
The circuit court entered an order accepting the voluntary relinquishment on March 11, 2016; petitioner did not directly appeal that order.
After the relinquishment, an incident prompted the maternal grandmother to lose custody and petitioner later sought new counsel and filed a "motion for reconsideration" (treated by the court as a Rose motion) asserting his relinquishment was procured by fraud or duress.
The circuit court held a hearing on the motion in October 2016, found no evidence of fraud or duress, denied relief, and the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed that denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether petitioner’s voluntary relinquishment was procured by fraud or duress	Petitioner contended he relinquished believing visitation and adoption by maternal grandmother were guaranteed (i.e., relinquishment was conditional/induced)	DHHR and guardian argued petitioner was properly informed, testified voluntarily, and there was no evidence of threats, promises, or coercion	Court held relinquishment was voluntary and free of fraud/duress; petitioner’s own admissions contradicted his claim
Whether a post-termination "motion for reconsideration" is procedurally available in abuse & neglect cases	Petitioner filed such a motion seeking to set aside his relinquishment	Respondents argued Rule 59/60 and Rule 46 relief do not apply; relief must proceed via Rose motion to challenge voluntariness	Court treated the filing as a Rose motion and addressed merits; procedural challenge did not preclude consideration

In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89 (2011) (standard of review for circuit court findings in abuse and neglect bench trials)
State ex rel. Rose L. v. Pancake, 209 W.Va. 188 (2001) (permits hearing to determine whether a voluntary relinquishment was made free from duress or fraud)
In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223 (1996) (describes clearly erroneous standard for reviewing circuit court factual findings)