In re L.T. and I.T.: Suitability Determination as a Prerequisite to Grandparent Home Studies Under W. Va. Code § 49-4-114

Introduction

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia decided In re L.T. and I.T. on May 13, 2025. At issue was whether a grandmother (R.C.)—who sought to intervene in Randolph County abuse & neglect proceedings and to permanently adopt her grandchildren—was entitled under the grandparent-preference statute, W. Va. Code § 49-4-114(a)(3), to a home study. The Circuit Court had denied her motions, finding the Department of Human Services (“DHS”) properly determined she was unsuitable, so no home study was required. The grandmother appealed, arguing a statutory duty to perform a home study regardless of suitability and claiming the DHS failed to comply with relative-placement provisions. The Supreme Court affirmed, emphasizing (1) initial suitability assessment can render a home study unnecessary, (2) the statutory grandparent preference is not absolute, and (3) the child’s best interests remain paramount.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court reviewed the facts under the abuse-and-neglect standard—factual findings for clear error, legal conclusions de novo. The grandmother first contacted CPS in early 2021 and filed multiple motions to intervene and for placement of L.T. and I.T. The DHS and guardian ad litem had concluded she was unsuitable based on:

The mother’s allegation of childhood maltreatment by the grandmother.
Discovery of “inappropriate pornographic materials” on the grandmother’s husband’s phone and the grandmother’s separation/reconciliation with him.
Grandmother’s lack of any bond with the two children and refusal to care for an older grandchild with behavioral issues.
None of the other older siblings wished placement with her.

The Circuit Court credited the DHS worker’s testimony, found the grandmother’s denied credibility on key points, and held that placement in her home would not serve the children’s best interests. It therefore denied her motions to intervene and for placement, and declined to require a home study once suitability was found lacking. The Supreme Court affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

In re L.M., 235 W. Va. 436, 774 S.E.2d 517 (2015) — Syllabus Point 10: no statutory requirement for a home study once an interested grandparent is found unsuitable.
In re M.F., 250 W. Va. 338, 902 S.E.2d 887 (2024) — Home study may follow only if the initial suitability assessment suggests it is needed.
In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) — Standards of appellate review in abuse and neglect cases.
In re Katie S., 198 W. Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (1996) — Children’s health and welfare as primary goal.
In re G.G., 249 W. Va. 496, 896 S.E.2d 662 (2023) — Deference to trial court’s child-custody discretion.
Michael D.C. v. Wanda L.C., 201 W. Va. 381, 497 S.E.2d 531 (1997) — Credibility determinations reserved to fact-finder.
In re K.E., 240 W. Va. 220, 809 S.E.2d 531 (2018) — Grandparent preference is not absolute; best interests govern.
Napoleon S. v. Walker, 217 W. Va. 254, 617 S.E.2d 801 (2005) — Preference overcome when not in child’s best interests.
Nichols v. Nichols, 160 W. Va. 514, 236 S.E.2d 36 (1977) — Review of custody is discretionary and not lightly disturbed.

Legal Reasoning

The Court anchored its decision in W. Va. Code § 49-4-114(a)(3), which provides:

For placement of a child for adoption, DHS “shall first consider the suitability and willingness of any known grandparent … to adopt the child. Once grandparents who are interested … have been identified, the department shall conduct a home study evaluation … If the department determines, based on the home study evaluation, that the grandparents would be suitable adoptive parents, it shall assure that the grandparents are offered placement …”

Key points of interpretation:

The statute’s “shall first consider … suitability” imposes a mandatory priority but does not require a home study once suitability is negated. Syllabus Pt. 10, In re L.M.
Where DHS reasonably determines an interested grandparent is unsuitable, the home-study mandate gives way to the best-interest assessment.
Grandparent preference may be defeated by substantial evidence that placement is not in the child’s best interests (In re K.E.).
The Circuit Court’s credibility findings—particularly on the grandmother’s lack of candor, no established bond, and concerns about sexual material—were not clearly erroneous (Michael D.C.).

Impact

This decision clarifies and limits the scope of W. Va. Code § 49-4-114(a)(3) in three important ways:

It confirms that a preliminary determination of unsuitability suffices to excuse DHS from a formal home study.
It reinforces that grandparent preference is subordinate to a rigorous best-interest analysis, especially in abuse and neglect contexts.
It provides appellate guidance: trial courts retain broad discretion on placement and credibility, and appellate courts will not second-guess clear-error findings.

Practically, grandparents seeking intervention and placement should:

Act promptly—late interventions may face statutory and discretionary hurdles.
Document all contacts with DHS/CPS and seek early home-study requests.
Anticipate best-interest challenges and prepare evidence of bond, stability, and suitable environment.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Home Study: A licensed social worker’s in-home evaluation and interviews to verify that a prospective caregiver can provide a safe, stable environment.
Intervenor Status: The procedural right to join an existing court case to protect one’s own interests.
Best Interests of the Child: A flexible, fact-intensive standard requiring courts to weigh stability, safety, emotional bonds, and developmental needs.
Clear Error vs. De Novo: Factual findings will stand unless obviously mistaken (“clear error”); legal issues are reviewed afresh (“de novo”).
Grandparent Preference: A statutory priority that requires DHS to explore grandparent adoption before other prospective parents, subject to best-interest constraints.
Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) Meeting: A coordinated gathering of CPS, law enforcement, GAL, and providers to share information and plan child welfare interventions.

Conclusion

In re L.T. and I.T. reaffirms that while West Virginia law grants grandparents a preference and a priority for home-study evaluations, that preference is not absolute. Once DHS reasonably concludes, based on credible evidence and a suitability screening, that a grandparent’s home would not serve the child’s best interests, it need not conduct a full home study. The decision underscores the primacy of the child’s welfare, upholds the trial court’s broad discretion on custody placements, and cautions prospective grandparent-adopters to seek timely intervention, robust documentation, and demonstrable bonds when challenging foster placements.