In Re: T.H., 17-0548

Mother (D.W.) moved to Colorado in 2014; child (T.H.) later lived with father, who moved back to West Virginia in 2016 and then placed the child with the maternal grandmother (C.M.).
Father died in August 2016; two days later the maternal grandmother filed for temporary guardianship in family court, which was granted in September 2016.
Family court referred the matter to circuit court under family-court rules after suspecting abuse/neglect; the DHHR filed an abuse-and-neglect petition in circuit court in early 2017 and the matters were consolidated.
At an adjudicatory hearing (February 2017) the circuit court found mother had abandoned the child under W. Va. Code § 48-22-306 and concluded placement with the maternal grandmother served the child’s best interests; mother appeared by phone.
The circuit court’s May 17, 2017 order appointed the grandmother as guardian, granted supervised visits to mother, dismissed the consolidated proceedings, and did not make findings under Chapter 49 or the Child Abuse and Neglect Rules.
Mother appealed, arguing the court erred in adjudicating her as an abusing parent and in how it treated the father’s move and the grandmother’s guardianship petition; the Supreme Court vacated and remanded for statutory/rule compliance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether circuit court complied with statutory and rule requirements for abuse-and-neglect adjudication	D.W.: circuit court improperly adjudicated her as an abusing parent and misapplied abandonment findings	DHHR/Grandmother: proceedings and guardian appointment were appropriate given mother’s lack of contact/support	Court: vacated order and remanded because the circuit court failed to make required Chapter 49 findings and follow child-abuse-and-neglect rules
Whether abandonment finding under § 48-22-306 sufficed for abuse/neglect adjudication	D.W.: the court mischaracterized the record and did not follow § 49 definitions	Respondents: relied on family/guardian facts to support placement	Court: abandonment was found under family-law statute but not under § 49-1-201; court must make § 49 findings explicitly
Whether court proceeded to disposition after adjudication as required by statute	D.W.: requested proper adjudicatory process and disposition	Respondents: treated guardianship appointment as disposition	Court: ruled circuit court failed to proceed to required disposition under § 49-4-604(a)(2); remand required
Whether permanency procedures and timelines were followed	D.W.: permanency requirements should be enforced	Respondents: emphasized stability in grandmother’s care	Court: reminded trial court of duty to hold periodic permanency reviews and meet 12-month permanency timelines per Rules 39 and 43

In re Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (W. Va. 1996) (standard of review and requirement for findings of fact and conclusions of law in bench trials)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (W. Va. 2011) (reiterating findings/conclusions and permanency obligations)
In re Edward B., 210 W.Va. 621, 558 S.E.2d 620 (W. Va. 2001) (orders will be vacated where abuse-and-neglect rules are substantially disregarded)
In re Emily G., 224 W.Va. 390, 686 S.E.2d 41 (W. Va. 2009) (vacatur/remand required for procedural noncompliance in abuse-and-neglect cases)
Nelson v. W. Va. Pub. Employees Ins. Bd., 171 W.Va. 445, 300 S.E.2d 86 (W. Va. 1982) (statutory "shall" construed as mandatory)
State v. Michael M., 202 W.Va. 350, 504 S.E.2d 177 (W. Va. 1998) (priority for adoption and consideration of permanent placement alternatives)
James M. v. Maynard, 185 W.Va. 648, 408 S.E.2d 400 (W. Va. 1991) (guardian ad litem role continues until permanent placement achieved)