The People of the State of Colorado, In the Interest of Minor Child S.C.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA January 2025 Term _____________________ FILED June 6, 2025 No. 23‑698 released at 3:00 p.m. C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK _____________________ SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA IN RE A.F. ___________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court of Wood County The Honorable Robert A. Waters, Judge Civil Action No. 21‑JA‑150 VACATED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS _________________________________________________________ Submitted: April 22, 2025 Filed: June 6, 2025 Joseph Munoz, Esq. John B. McCuskey, Esq. Parkersburg, West Virginia Attorney General Counsel for the Petitioners, Kristen E. Ross, Esq. Intervenor Grandparents, P.F. and R.F. Assistant Attorney General Charleston, West Virginia Counsel for the Respondent, Department of Human Services Keith White, Esq. St. Mary’s, West Virginia Guardian Ad Litem for A.F. Michael Farnsworth, Esq. Parkersburg, West Virginia Counsel for the Intervenor Foster Parents, K.B. and M.B. CHIEF JUSTICE WOOTON delivered the Opinion of the Court. JUSTICE TRUMP concurs and reserves the right to file a separate opinion.  SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. “This Court reviews the circuit court's final order and ultimate disposition under an abuse of discretion standard. We review challenges to findings of fact under a clearly erroneous standard; conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.” Syl. Pt. 4, Burgess v. Porterfield, 196 W. Va. 178, 469 S.E.2d 114 (1996). 2. “Questions relating to . . . custody of the children are within the sound discretion of the court and its action with respect to such matters will not be disturbed on appeal unless it clearly appears that such discretion has been abused.” Syl., in part, Nichols v. Nichols, 160 W. Va. 514, 236 S.E.2d 36 (1977). 3. “In visitation as well as custody matters, we have traditionally held paramount the best interests of the child.” Syl. Pt. 5, Carter v. Carter, 196 W. Va. 239, 470 S.E.2d 193 (1996). 4. “West Virginia Code § [49‑4‑114(a)(3) (2024)] provides for grandparent preference in determining adoptive placement for a child where parental rights have been terminated and also incorporates a best interests analysis within that determination by including the requirement that the [DHS] find that the grandparents would be suitable adoptive parents prior to granting custody to the grandparents. The statute contemplates that placement with grandparents is presumptively in the best interests i of the child, and the preference for grandparent placement may be overcome only where the record reviewed in its entirety establishes that such placement is not in the best interests of the child.” Syl. Pt. 4, Napoleon S. v. Walker, 217 W. Va. 254, 617 S.E.2d 801 (2005). 5. In denying grandparent placement the circuit court must make detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law demonstrating that it considered the grandparent preference in West Virginia Code § 49-4-114(a)(3) (2024) and determined, based on the record in its entirety, that the preference was overcome by the best interests of the child. ii WOOTON, Chief Justice: Petitioners P.F. and R.F. 1 (“petitioners”) appeal the November 8, 2023, order of the Circuit Court of Wood County denying their motions for visitation and custody with respect to their grandchild A.F., who is the subject of this abuse and neglect proceeding. On appeal, petitioners assert that the circuit court erred by failing to properly apply the grandparent preference expressed in West Virginia Code § 49-4-114(a)(3) (2024) and by denying visitation and placem

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.’