Background
The West Virginia Department of Human Services filed an abuse-and-neglect petition against K.G.’s mother in June 2024, primarily alleging alcohol abuse. K.G. was placed with her grandmother. Although the mother initially proposed a partial relinquishment of parental rights, K.G.’s guardian ad litem opposed that course based on the child’s wishes and sought a preadjudicatory improvement period instead.
The mother successfully completed the improvement period and was never adjudicated an abusive or neglectful parent. At the permanency hearing, the guardian ad litem and mother supported placing K.G. in a subsidized legal guardianship with the grandmother, where K.G. wished to remain. DHS opposed paying a guardianship subsidy and sought dismissal of the petition. The circuit court returned custody to the mother, denied the requested subsidized guardianship, and dismissed the case.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that subsidized guardianship was statutorily unavailable because the guardian ad litem did not establish that K.G. was in the “special circumstances” required by West Virginia Code § 49-4-112(a), such as disability, emotional disturbance, older-child status, sibling-group status, or racial or ethnic minority status that inhibited guardianship placement.
The Court also held that the circuit court adequately considered K.G.’s best interests. The mother had completed services, was never adjudicated unfit, retained her full parental rights, and no evidence showed that returning K.G. to her would be unsafe. K.G.’s preference to live with her grandmother did not establish error. The dismissal did not prevent the family from allowing K.G. to remain with her grandmother or from pursuing a separate guardianship petition.
Key Takeaways
- A best-interests showing alone does not establish eligibility for a DHS-subsidized legal guardianship under § 49-4-112.
- A parent who completes a preadjudicatory improvement period without an adjudication retains the fundamental right to reunification absent a legal bar or evidence of danger.
- A child’s placement preference does not override a nonadjudicated parent’s rights or establish that dismissal was an abuse of discretion.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that West Virginia’s guardianship-subsidy statute has threshold eligibility requirements beyond whether a subsidy would benefit a child. It also reinforces the preference for dismissal and reunification where a parent has corrected the alleged conditions and was never adjudicated abusive or neglectful.