In re A.W.

Summary

The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s order placing A.W. with the child’s great-grandmother rather than the paternal grandparents. The Court held that the grandparent-placement preference and sibling-reunification considerations were subordinate to the child’s best interests and found no error in the circuit court’s consideration of bonding and psychological-parent evidence or in its exclusion of late-disclosed expert testimony.

Holdings

1. The grandparent placement preference does not require placement with grandparents when the record establishes that such placement is not in the child's best interests. The circuit court properly applied the preference but found compelling evidence that placement with the petitioners was not in A.W.'s best interest.
2. The circuit court did not err in separating the siblings because placement with A.M. was based on A.W.'s best interests, and the court was not precluded from ordering separation merely because the DHHR had not filed a petition seeking it.
3. The circuit court did not err in considering the bond between A.W. and A.M.; in any event, sufficient evidence supported placement with A.M. apart from that bond.
4. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners' request to present expert testimony and did not err in finding that A.M. was A.W.'s psychological parent.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the circuit court erred by denying the paternal grandparents placement despite the statutory grandparent preference under West Virginia Code § 49-3-1(a)(3).
2. Whether the statutory grandparent preference applies equally to great-grandparents.
3. Whether the circuit court erred by ordering sibling separation despite the sibling-reunification preference in West Virginia Code § 49-2-14(e) and the absence of a DHHR petition seeking separation.
4. Whether the circuit court improperly relied on bonding between A.W. and A.M. when the prior placement created that bond.
5. Whether the circuit court erred by denying petitioners' request to present expert testimony and by finding that A.M. was A.W.'s psychological parent.

Disposition

affirmed