Background
In 2017, the Circuit Court of Kanawha County terminated the parental rights of R.L. in a child abuse and neglect proceeding based on domestic violence. Despite this termination order, R.L. continued to live with his daughter, G.L., and her mother. In October 2023, R.L. shot the mother in G.L.’s presence. Following R.L.’s arrest, the Department of Human Services initiated abuse and neglect proceedings against the mother, who voluntarily relinquished her parental rights in August 2024. The child was placed in foster care with a foster parent who intended to adopt her.
In November 2024, the paternal grandmother (petitioner D.L.) filed a pro se motion to intervene in the proceedings. At a January 2025 hearing, the grandmother testified that she was unaware of the 2017 termination of R.L.’s parental rights. She claimed R.L. had brought G.L. to her house monthly until October 2023 and had left the child alone with her in July 2023. She also stated that R.L. resided at her house after the shooting. However, R.L.’s bond was revoked after he and the grandmother attempted to contact the mother in violation of bond conditions. The grandmother made no further attempts to locate or contact G.L. after that event.
The circuit court denied the grandmother’s motion to intervene, finding she was not a custodial relative or significant caregiver, the child never resided with her, she had no contact with G.L. for over a year, and the ten-year-old child expressed a desire for no further contact with the grandmother.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the circuit court’s denial. The court clarified that while West Virginia Code § 49-4-601(h) entitles relative caregivers to “a meaningful opportunity to be heard” in abuse and neglect proceedings, this statutory right does not equate to a right to intervene. Foster parents, pre-adoptive parents, and relative caregivers are subject to discretionary limitations on the level and type of participation as determined by the circuit court.
The court held that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in denying the grandmother’s motion to intervene. The grandmother was not a custodial relative prior to the proceedings, the child never resided with her, there had been no contact for over a year, and the child was in foster care throughout the case. Additionally, the child’s expressed preference against contact with the grandmother weighed against intervention.
The court noted that the circuit court afforded the grandmother a meaningful opportunity to be heard by conducting a hearing, permitting her to testify regarding her relationship with the child, and considering her testimony alongside other evidence, including the child’s wishes. The fact that the grandmother did not obtain intervenor status did not violate her statutory rights.
Key Takeaways
- A statutory right to “a meaningful opportunity to be heard” in child protection proceedings does not create a right to intervene as a party.
- Relative caregivers may be afforded a meaningful opportunity to be heard through limited forms of participation, such as testifying at a hearing, without being granted intervenor status.
- Circuit courts have discretion to limit the participation of grandparents and other relatives based on factors including lack of prior custodial status, lack of significant caregiving, duration of no contact with the child, and the child’s expressed preferences.
- Prior termination of a parent’s parental rights is relevant when evaluating whether a grandparent should be permitted to intervene in subsequent abuse and neglect proceedings involving that grandparent’s grandchild.
Why It Matters
This decision provides important guidance on the scope of rights afforded to relatives in child abuse and neglect proceedings under West Virginia law. By distinguishing between a right to be heard and a right to intervene, the court protects children’s permanency and safety interests while preventing collateral family members from disrupting established placements. The holding reflects that a grandparent’s participation in proceedings, even when afforded an opportunity to testify, need not result in intervention rights that could delay or complicate adoption or other permanency plans.
The decision also underscores that courts must weigh multiple factors when evaluating intervention requests from relatives, including the nature and history of the relationship with the child, compliance with prior court orders affecting family members, and importantly, the child’s own expressed preferences. For child welfare practitioners and family law attorneys, this case clarifies that West Virginia’s statute requiring relatives to be “heard” does not obligate courts to grant intervention as a full party to proceedings.