In re A.A.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the denial of a paternal grandmother’s motion to transfer custody of A.A. in an abuse and neglect proceeding. The court held that the circuit court properly exercised jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act and concluded that placement with the grandmother was not in the child’s best interests despite the statutory grandparent preference.

Holdings

1. The circuit court properly exercised significant-connection jurisdiction under West Virginia Code § 48-20-201(a)(2). No state qualified as A.A.'s home state under the six-month requirement, but A.A. and both parents had significant connections to West Virginia beyond mere physical presence, and substantial evidence concerning A.A.'s care, protection, training, and relationships was available there.
2. The circuit court did not err by failing to name B.M. as a party in the original abuse and neglect petition because the record did not establish that she shared actual physical possession, care, or custody of A.A. as a statutory custodian. She more readily fit the statutory definition of caregiver, and caregivers are not required to be named as parties under West Virginia Code § 49-4-601(b).
3. The circuit court did not err by admitting testimony from K.S. because Rule 30's enhanced disclosure requirements apply to dispositional hearings, not to the permanency hearing on B.M.'s motion to transfer custody. The general disclosure rule required disclosure of the witness's name and address, not a summary of the expected testimony, and the DHHR complied.
4. The circuit court properly applied West Virginia Code § 49-4-114(a)(3) and did not err in denying B.M.'s motion to transfer custody. The grandparent preference does not require placement with a grandparent when the grandparent was not initially willing or when the record as a whole establishes that placement would not be in the child's best interests.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Pleasants County Circuit Court had subject matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA when no state qualified as A.A.'s home state but A.A. and at least one parent had significant connections to West Virginia and substantial evidence concerning the child was located there.
2. Whether B.M. was a custodian who was required to be named as a party in the original abuse and neglect petition.
3. Whether the circuit court erred by admitting and relying on testimony from a witness whose expected testimony was not disclosed under Rule 30 of the Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings.
4. Whether the circuit court properly applied the statutory grandparent preference and determined that placement with B.M. was not in A.A.'s best interests.
5. Whether the circuit court's findings concerning delay in seeking custody, disruption to A.A., and possible contact with the terminated father were clearly erroneous.

Disposition

affirmed