In re H.C.: No Automatic Post‑Guardianship Visitation—Parental Rehabilitation Alone Is Insufficient Absent a Strong Bond and Best‑Interests Showing

Introduction

This memorandum decision from the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirms a Preston County circuit court order denying a father’s motion for visitation with his minor child following the establishment of a permanent legal guardianship. Petitioner Father S.C., after release from incarceration and significant rehabilitation efforts, sought visitation with H.C. The circuit court denied visitation, finding the child continued to experience severe trauma associated with the father and that contact was not in her best interests. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed.

Key issues included:

Whether a parent’s post-disposition rehabilitation and “material change in circumstances” compels the resumption of visitation when parental rights remain intact but the child lives in a permanent legal guardianship placement.
How the “child’s best interests” standard—particularly the presence (or absence) of a strong emotional bond and evidence of harm from contact—governs post‑guardianship visitation requests.
The proper procedural vehicle for seeking reunification or modification of a dispositional order under West Virginia Code § 49-4-606.

Parties and posture:

Petitioner Father: S.C. (represented by counsel)
Respondent Agency: West Virginia Department of Human Services (formerly DHHR) (represented by the Attorney General’s Office)
Child’s Guardian ad Litem: Clarissa M. Banks
Lower Court: Circuit Court of Preston County (denied visitation on June 18, 2024)
Supreme Court Disposition: Affirmed, by memorandum decision, September 10, 2025

Summary of the Opinion

The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of visitation. While acknowledging the father’s “material change in circumstances” (release from incarceration, probation compliance, sobriety, stable employment, home improvements, cessation of domestic violence), the Court held that these changes did not override the controlling best‑interests analysis. The record—consisting of multiple evidentiary hearings, the child’s therapist’s testimony and records, and three in camera interviews—showed:

The child lacked a strong emotional bond with the father.
Visits and even the anticipation of visits triggered trauma responses, including anxiety, moodiness, crying, oppositional behavior, aggression, skill regression, nightmares, and anger.
The child consistently and clearly expressed a wish to have no contact with the father and to remain with her guardians.

Relying on In re H.M. (2025) and Syl. Pt. 11 of In re Jonathan G. (1996), the Court emphasized that continued association is appropriate only when it serves the child’s best interests and rests on a strong emotional bond such that ending contact would harm the child. Because the evidence showed detriment from visitation and no strong bond, the Court found no error in denying visitation. The Court also rejected the father’s reliance on W. Va. Code § 49‑4‑606 (modification of dispositional orders) because he had not filed a motion to modify or to reunify; he sought only visitation.

Detailed Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Cited

In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (Syl. Pt. 1): Establishes the standard of review in abuse and neglect appeals—factual findings are reviewed for clear error; legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. This framework constrained appellate reweighing of the circuit court’s fact findings concerning trauma, bond, and harm.
In re H.M., 251 W. Va. 333, 912 S.E.2d 912 (2025): Clarifies that when parental rights remain intact but custody is not returned, courts may grant continued visitation only if it is in the child’s best interests, echoing the “continued association” principle from Jonathan G. In re H.C. relies on H.M. to situate visitation within a child‑centric lens rather than a parental entitlement model.
In re Jonathan G., 198 W. Va. 716, 482 S.E.2d 893 (1996) (Syl. Pt. 11 and discussion at 198 W. Va. at 735): Articulates the core principle that a child has a right to continued association with individuals with whom the child has formed a close emotional bond—provided maintaining contact is in the child’s best interests. The “guiding principle” is whether cessation of contact would be harmful to the child in both transitional and long‑term development. In re H.C. uses Jonathan G. as the doctrinal anchor to deny visitation where there was no strong bond and where contact was affirmatively harmful.
Honaker v. Burnside, 182 W. Va. 448, 388 S.E.2d 322 (1989): Recognizes that visitation is intended as a contribution to a child’s emotional well‑being, not as a benefit to the adult per se. In re H.C. applies this framing to underscore that visitation is not automatic; it must further the child’s welfare.
Looper v. McManus, 581 P.2d 487 (Okla. Civ. App. 1978): Cited by Honaker for the proposition that visitation serves the child’s well‑being. In re H.C. incorporates this lineage to support the primacy of the child’s best interests.
W. Va. Code § 49‑4‑606 (Modification of dispositional orders): The father invoked this statute to argue that his “material change in circumstances” required “return” of the child. The Supreme Court held the argument misplaced procedurally because he never moved to modify the dispositional order or to reunify; he only sought visitation. Absent a proper motion, no relief on modification grounds was available.
W. Va. R. App. P. 21 (Memorandum decision): The Court deemed oral argument unnecessary and resolved the case by memorandum decision, signaling that existing precedent governed and there was no prejudicial error warranting a published opinion with new syllabus points.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeds in three related steps:

Standard of Review and Deference to the Circuit Court’s Fact‑Finding: Under In re Cecil T., the Court gives deference to factual findings unless clearly erroneous. The circuit court held multiple evidentiary hearings over more than two years, admitted therapy records, heard from the therapist, and interviewed the child in camera three times. These procedures generated a robust record supporting findings that:
- The child endured severe emotional and psychological trauma tied to the father’s conduct.
- Visitation and even anticipation of contact caused acute distress and regression.
- The child consistently expressed a wish for no contact and to remain with guardians.
- There was no close emotional bond with the father.
Given this evidentiary base, there was no clear error to disturb these findings.
Best‑Interests Analysis Anchored in “Strong Emotional Bond” and Harm: Applying In re H.M. and In re Jonathan G., the Court reiterated that continued association or visitation hinges on whether it is in the child’s best interests, which is often demonstrated by a strong emotional bond such that cutting off contact would harm the child. The record here showed the inverse—contact produced harm and there was no strong bond. Thus, the predicate for continued visitation was absent.
Rehabilitation Is Necessary But Not Sufficient; Procedural Guardrails Matter: The father’s rehabilitation was acknowledged as a “material change in circumstances,” but the Court held it could not supersede the best‑interests determination. Moreover, because the father did not file a motion under § 49‑4‑606 to modify the dispositional order or seek reunification, he could not obtain that relief on appeal. The only live question was visitation, and on that question, the child’s welfare controlled the outcome.

Impact and Practical Implications

This decision reinforces and clarifies several points likely to shape future abuse‑and‑neglect and post‑guardianship litigation in West Virginia:

No automatic visitation after rehabilitation. A parent’s commendable post‑disposition progress (sobriety, compliance, stability) does not create an entitlement to visitation. The dispositive inquiry remains whether visitation serves the child’s best interests, proven by evidence of a strong bond and absence of harm.
Child’s voice and therapeutic evidence carry substantial weight. The Court credited the child’s clear, consistent wishes—bolstered by the therapist’s opinion that the eight‑year‑old possessed sufficient maturity and insight—and the therapist’s data on trauma triggers and regression. Expect courts to rely heavily on in camera interviews and clinical evidence when evaluating visitation.
“Strong emotional bond” is a gatekeeper. The Jonathan G. framework presupposes an existing close relationship. Where a child lacks a close bond with the parent (especially after a significant separation and trauma), courts may deny visitation to prevent harm rather than order contact to “rebuild” a relationship.
Visitation is for the child’s welfare, not the adult’s rehabilitation narrative. Honaker’s framing—visitation contributes to the child’s emotional well‑being—means adult improvements, though laudable, cannot justify contact that hurts the child.
Procedural precision is essential. Parents seeking more than visitation—e.g., reunification or placement changes—must file a proper motion to modify the dispositional order under § 49‑4‑606. Courts will not award such relief in the absence of a motion and record directed to that question.
Guardianship stability is respected. Permanent legal guardianship remains a stable permanency option. Where evidence shows visitation undermines a child’s well‑being, courts will prioritize permanency and emotional safety over contact.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Abuse and neglect adjudication: A judicial finding that a parent abused or neglected the child, often after stipulated facts. It triggers dispositional options to protect the child.
Disposition under W. Va. Code § 49‑4‑604: The court’s post‑adjudication orders to secure the child’s safety and permanency. One option is permanent legal guardianship with a suitable caregiver. The opinion notes the mother received a disposition under § 49‑4‑604(c)(5), and the father signed a waiver facilitating subsidized legal guardianship.
Permanent legal guardianship: A court‑ordered, stable caregiving arrangement in which non‑parents have legal authority to make decisions for the child. Parental rights may remain intact, but custody and decision‑making are vested in guardians.
Material change in circumstances: A significant post‑order change (e.g., release from incarceration, sobriety, stability). It can justify revisiting orders, but only through proper motions and only if changes serve the child’s best interests.
Best interests of the child: The paramount standard guiding all custodial and visitation decisions. Courts assess safety, emotional health, developmental needs, and the impact of contact or its cessation.
Strong emotional bond test: From In re Jonathan G., courts ask whether the child has a close relationship with the person seeking contact and whether ending contact would harm the child. This test limits continued association to cases where the child’s welfare is advanced by contact.
In camera interview: A private conversation between the judge and the child (outside the presence of other parties) to elicit the child’s views safely and candidly.
Standard of review: On appeal, factual findings are set aside only if clearly erroneous; legal issues are reviewed anew (de novo). This high bar means well‑supported trial findings about trauma and harm are rarely disturbed.
Memorandum decision (Rule 21): A streamlined appellate disposition used when the case is controlled by settled law and no prejudicial error exists; it signals application—not creation—of precedent.

Case Timeline (At a Glance)

January 2019: DHS files abuse and neglect petition; father stipulates; adjudicated abusing/neglecting parent.
April 2019: Father signs waiver to facilitate subsidized legal guardianship with current placement.
December 2020: Court grants permanent legal guardianship to guardians.
April 2021: Father released from incarceration; moves for visitation.
June 2021–November 2023: Multiple evidentiary hearings; therapist testifies; therapy notes admitted; three in camera interviews with the child.
June 18, 2024: Circuit court denies visitation; finds continuing trauma, lack of bond, and child’s consistent wish for no contact.
September 10, 2025: Supreme Court affirms by memorandum decision.

Why the Court Was Unpersuaded by the Father’s Improvements

The opinion carefully acknowledges the father’s progress but separates adult rehabilitation from the child’s welfare:

Rehabilitation is relevant to whether a parent is fit to resume some role, but the law demands proof that proposed contact benefits the child.
Here, clinical evidence showed harm associated with contact: anxiety, mood disruptions, oppositional behavior, aggression, and regression, even before visits occurred.
The child’s clear, repeated wishes—combined with therapist opinion that she had the maturity to comprehend her circumstances—were entitled to meaningful weight.
Under Jonathan G., the underlying premise for continued association is a strong bond. The record showed the absence of such a bond and the presence of harm.

What This Decision Does Not Do

It does not terminate the father’s parental rights. The case concerns visitation in the context of a permanent legal guardianship with parental rights intact.
It does not foreclose the possibility that a parent might in the future seek appropriate relief. A parent could, if circumstances materially change and the child’s well‑being supports it, file new motions (e.g., for therapeutic contact) or properly move to modify under § 49‑4‑606—subject always to best‑interests proof.
It does not create a categorical bar against visitation in guardianship cases; rather, it insists on evidence that visitation serves the child’s best interests and is anchored by a strong bond and absence of harm.

Practice Pointers

For parents: Rehabilitation is commendable but insufficient by itself. Build a record focused on the child’s welfare—therapeutic recommendations supporting safe, incremental contact; evidence of a positive bond; expert testimony that contact would benefit the child.
For guardians and DHS: Document the child’s responses to contact rigorously (therapy notes, behavioral observations, school reports). Evidence of harm will carry significant weight.
For counsel: Use the correct procedural vehicle. If reunification or placement modification is sought, file a motion under § 49‑4‑606 and develop a record addressing statutory criteria and best interests.
For courts: Continue to conduct careful, developmentally appropriate in camera interviews; solicit expert input on trauma; and tailor orders to minimize harm, including considering the advisability of no‑contact where warranted.

Conclusion

In re H.C. reaffirms West Virginia’s child‑centric approach to post‑dispositional visitation: a parent’s post‑adjudication improvements, while essential, do not create an automatic right to contact. The touchstone remains the child’s best interests as concretely demonstrated by a strong emotional bond and the absence of harm from contact. Where, as here, the evidence shows trauma, regression, and a clear child preference against contact—supported by therapeutic assessment—courts may deny visitation even when parental rights remain intact and the parent has rehabilitated.

The decision also underscores procedural discipline: to seek reunification or changes to the dispositional framework, litigants must use § 49‑4‑606. Ultimately, In re H.C. is a careful application of established precedent (H.M.; Jonathan G.; Honaker) that prioritizes the child’s emotional safety and developmental well‑being over a generalized preference for parental visitation. It confirms that continued association is a child’s right, not a parental entitlement, and that the existence of a strong bond—and demonstrable benefit to the child—are the gateway to any post‑guardianship visitation.