State ex rel. West Virginia Department of Human Services v. The Honorable Catie Delligatti, Judge of the Circuit Court of Berkeley County
Court
West Virginia Supreme Court
Decided
June 4, 2025
Jurisdiction
S
Practice Areas
Case Summary
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED State of West Virginia ex rel. West Virginia Department of Human Services, June 4, 2025 released at 3:00 p.m. Petitioner C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS v.) No. 24-582 (Berkeley County CC-02-2014-CIG-3) OF WEST VIRGINIA The Honorable Catie Delligatti,1 Judge of the Circuit Court of Berkeley County; Jill B., Petitioner Below and Party in Interest; and William Prentice Young, Guardian ad Litem of the child A.B.,2 Respondents MEMORANDUM DECISION Petitioner, the West Virginia Department of Human Services (“DHS”),3 seeks a writ of prohibition to prevent the Circuit Court of Berkeley County from enforcing its September 26, 2024 order directing the DHS to pay $10,353.00 in vision care expenses for a child, A.B., who is not in the DHS’s physical or legal custody, is not the subject of any currently pending abuse and neglect 1 After the DHS filed this proceeding, the circuit court judge assigned to the case changed; the presiding judge is now the Honorable Catie Delligatti. Accordingly, the Court has substituted the proper party pursuant to Rule 41(c) of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure. 2 The DHS lists as respondents to its petition only the circuit court judge and Jill B. The child A.B. is a real party in interest to this petition for writ of prohibition, which relates to an underlying guardianship proceeding. As such, we include A.B., by his guardian ad litem, as a respondent to this proceeding. 3 Petitioner appears by Attorney General John B. McCuskey and Assistant Attorney General Kristen E. Ross. Because a new Attorney General took office while this proceeding was pending, his name has been substituted as counsel. Respondent Jill B. is self-represented, and the guardian ad litem for A.B. is William P. Young. Additionally, pursuant to West Virginia Code § 5F-2-1a, the agency formerly known as the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources was terminated. It is now three separate agencies—the Department of Health Facilities, the Department of Health, and the Department of Human Services. See W. Va. Code § 5F-1-2. For purposes of abuse and neglect proceedings, the agency is now the Department of Human Services. 1 proceeding, has guardians who were appointed by the circuit court in a private guardianship proceeding, and does not qualify for a subsidized guardianship.4 We find that this case satisfies the “limited circumstances” requirement of Rule 21(d) of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure for issuance of a memorandum decision rather than an opinion. For the reasons set forth below, we grant the requested writ of prohibition. The private guardianship proceeding underlying this original jurisdiction action was initiated by A.B.’s court-appointed guardians, Jill and Thomas B.5 To provide context for the circuit court’s decision that the DHS seeks to prohibit, we briefly describe the factual circumstances that led to Jill and Thomas B.’s court-appointed guardianship over A.B. Because of the limited record for this matter, the following facts are gleaned from the court’s order, the parties’ briefs, and the DHS’s “Objection to and Motion to Reconsider the Circuit Court’s June 12, 2024, Order,” that it filed in the circuit court. The tragic circumstances that ultimately led to A.B.’s guardianship began when he was conceived. A.B.’s mother, P.B., became pregnant at twelve years old after a family friend raped her. P.B.’s mother became aware of and reported the pregnancy when P.B. was about seven-and- a-half months pregnant. The DHS filed an abuse and neglect petition naming A.B.’s father as an offending parent and identifying his four children, including A.B., as abused and neglected children. P.B. was named in the abuse and neglect petition, but only as A.B.’s non-offending parent, and the court appointed counsel for her. A.B.’s father voluntarily relinquished his parental rights to his children, including A.B. The DHS did not file an abuse and neglect petition against P.B.’s mother, S.B., because it determined that S.B. took appropriate action after learning of P.B.’s pregnancy by contacting police, cooperating with the investigation, and preventing contact between P.B. and her assailant. During P.B.’s pregnancy, she met Jill B. through a support program for teenage mothers. After A.B.’
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 4, 2025
Jurisdiction
S
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
AI-generated comprehensive summary with legal analysis
Case Overview
In State ex rel. West Virginia Department of Human Services v. The Honorable Catie Delligatti, the West Virginia Supreme Court addressed the legal obligations of the Department of Human Services (DHS) regarding payment for vision care expenses for a child, A.B., who is not in DHS custody. The case, decided on June 4, 2025, raises significant questions about guardianship, parental rights, and the financial responsibilities of state agencies.
Legal Issues
The court examined several critical legal issues:
- Can the Circuit Court of Berkeley County compel DHS to pay for vision care expenses for A.B., who is under private guardianship?
- What are the implications of terminating guardianship and custody rights held by Jill and Thomas B.?
- Is DHS financially responsible for A.B.'s medical expenses despite not being a party to the guardianship proceeding?
Factual Background
- A.B. is under the guardianship of Jill and Thomas B., who are not affiliated with DHS.
- P.B., A.B.'s mother, faced mental health challenges that led to the establishment of guardianship.
- The Circuit Court ordered DHS to reimburse Jill B. for A.B.'s medical expenses, despite DHS not having custody or being a party to the guardianship.
- The court found no evidence of abuse or neglect by P.B., thus maintaining her parental rights.
Court's Analysis
The West Virginia Supreme Court reasoned as follows:
- DHS's Lack of Responsibility: The court concluded that DHS is not responsible for A.B.'s expenses since he is under private guardianship. The court emphasized that DHS's role is limited to abuse and neglect proceedings, not private guardianship matters.
- Legal Authority: The Circuit Court's order compelling DHS to pay for A.B.'s vision therapy lacked legal authority. The court highlighted that fairness does not equate to a legal obligation, thus ruling the order as a clear error of law.
- Best Interest of the Child: The court maintained that decisions regarding guardianship and custody should prioritize the best interests of the child, which in this case upheld P.B.'s parental rights despite her challenges.
Holdings and Decision
The court made several key rulings:
- Writ of Prohibition Granted: The court granted the writ of prohibition, preventing the Circuit Court from enforcing its order requiring DHS to pay for A.B.'s vision care expenses.
- Parental Rights Upheld: P.B.'s parental rights were upheld, maintaining a 50-50 custody arrangement, while DHS was ordered to reimburse medical expenses, setting a precedent for future cases.
Legal Precedents
The court referenced several important legal precedents:
- W. Va. Code § 5F-2-1a: Outlines the restructuring of the Department of Health and Human Resources, emphasizing DHS's limited role in private guardianship.
- W. Va. R. Prac. & P. Minor Guardianship Proc. 2(c): Clarifies the parties involved in minor guardianship cases, excluding DHS when it does not have custody.
- State ex rel. Hoover v. Berger, 199 W. Va. 12, 483 S.E.2d 12 (1996): Establishes grounds for issuing a writ of prohibition, reinforcing the need for legal authority in court orders.
Practical Implications
This ruling has significant implications for:
- Family Law: It clarifies the boundaries of DHS's financial responsibilities in guardianship cases, emphasizing the importance of legal authority in court orders.
- Child Welfare Law: The decision reinforces the necessity of prioritizing the best interests of the child while balancing parental rights and agency responsibilities.
- Future Cases: The precedent set by this case will guide future decisions involving guardianship, custody, and agency obligations in West Virginia.
Overall, this case highlights the complexities of family law and the critical role of legal frameworks in determining the responsibilities of state agencies in private guardianship situations.
Legal Topics
Areas of law covered in this case
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 4, 2025
Jurisdiction
S
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools