In re T.W., 737 S.E.2d 69

Petitioner Stephanie D. appeals a circuit court order that accepted John W.'s voluntary relinquishment of parental rights to T.W. and C.W. and dismissed S.W. and J.W. from the abuse and neglect case.
Four children: T.W. (b. 1995) and C.W. (b. 1996) lived with mother Wendy P.; S.W. (b. 1997) and J.W. (b. 2006) lived with Stephanie D. in Maryland; John W. had visitation every other weekend.
Allegations included deplorable home conditions, malnourishment of T.W., hip injury, and sexual abuse of C.W.; a rape allegation involving S.W. by an older daughter’s boyfriend arose but was not included in initial petitions.
DHHR filed an abuse and neglect petition in Berkeley County, West Virginia; Maryland proceedings were stayed; the petition named all four children but initially lacked the rape allegations against S.W.; the court dismissed S.W. and J.W. without a hearing.
The trial court accepted John W.'s relinquishment without a full evidentiary hearing addressing abuse/neglect findings or the best interests of all four children; Petitioner appealed, arguing lack of hearing, lack of separate GAL for Maryland children, and failure to consider the two Maryland children.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the circuit court abused by accepting voluntary relinquishment without a full adjudicatory and dispositional hearing.	Petitioner argues no full evidentiary hearing and no best-interests analysis for all children.	DHHR contends court may accept relinquishment with proper consideration.	Vacated; remanded for full evidentiary hearing addressing all four children.
Whether a separate guardian ad litem should have been appointed for the Maryland-residing children.	GAL for all four failed to adequately investigate the Maryland children.	GAL duties were not fully specified as to Maryland children.	Abused discretion; remanded to appoint separate GAL for S.W. and J.W.
Whether the in-camera hearing was required to elicit the older children's wishes.	Older children should have opportunity to express concerns and wishes.	Court relied on representations; no in-camera hearing needed.	Should have provided meaningful opportunity; remand to determine process for the older children's input.
Whether dismissing S.W. and J.W. from Maryland was proper.	Court should address all four children and not prematurely dismiss two.	Maryland case not before WV court; dismissal appropriate.	Abused discretion; remand to address abuse/neglect issues for the Maryland children.

In re Emily, 208 W.Va. 325, 540 S.E.2d 542 (2000) (compound standard of review; abuse/neglect findings must be made)
In re Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (primary goal is health and welfare of the children)
State v. T.C., 172 W.Va. 47, 303 S.E.2d 685 (1983) (threshold question of abuse/neglect must be resolved before dispositional steps)
In re Edward B., 210 W.Va. 621, 558 S.E.2d 620 (2001) (disposition must comply with statutory process; cannot bypass hearings)
In re Beth Ann B., 204 W.Va. 424, 513 S.E.2d 472 (1998) (even with stipulations, a disposition hearing is required)
In re Jessica G., 226 W.Va. 17, 697 S.E.2d 53 (2010) (in-camera consideration of elder children's wishes when termination is sought)
In Ashton M., 228 W.Va. 584, 723 S.E.2d 409 (2012) (emphasizes weighing elder children’s wishes)
State ex rel. DHHR v. Hill, 207 W.Va. 358, 532 S.E.2d 358 (2000) (disposition hearing required; can amend petition if new allegations arise)
In re Randy H., 220 W.Va. 122, 640 S.E.2d 185 (2006) (court may compel amendment to petitions to include additional abuse/neglect)
In re Elizabeth A., 217 W.Va. 197, 617 S.E.2d 547 (2005) (guardian ad litem duties; representation and investigation required)
In re Christina L., 194 W.Va. 446, 460 S.E.2d 692 (1995) (GAL duties; independent investigation)
In re Jeffrey R.L., 190 W.Va. 24, 435 S.E.2d 162 (1993) (GAL must conduct full independent investigation)