No Duty of West Virginia DHS to Fund Services for Children under Private Guardianship Absent Statutory Authority

Introduction

State ex rel. West Virginia Department of Human Services v. The Honorable Catie Delligatti, Judge of the Circuit Court of Berkeley County (No. 24-582, decided June 4, 2025), is a West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals memorandum decision addressing whether a circuit court may compel the Department of Human Services (“DHS”) to pay medical and therapeutic expenses for a child who is under a private guardianship and not in DHS custody, abuse and neglect proceedings, or a subsidized guardianship.

The petitioner, DHS, sought a writ of prohibition to stop enforcement of a September 26, 2024 order requiring DHS to reimburse $10,353 for the vision therapy of A.B., a child in the sole legal custody of private guardians, Jill and Thomas B. The circuit court had originally ordered DHS to pay over $26,000 for a variety of services and later modified the order to require only vision-therapy reimbursement, citing fairness and the court’s view that DHS had previously failed to protect A.B. and his mother, P.B., in an unrelated abuse and neglect proceeding. DHS argued that no statutory authority empowered the court to impose such financial obligations on DHS. The Supreme Court agreed and granted the writ of prohibition.

Summary of the Judgment

The circuit court had ordered DHS to reimburse private guardians for various medical, therapy, and mileage expenses incurred for A.B., a child under private guardianship, and later narrowed the order to $10,353 for out-of-network vision therapy.
DHS filed an original jurisdiction petition for a writ of prohibition, arguing that the court exceeded its legitimate powers because no law requires DHS to pay for services for a child outside of DHS custody or a subsidized guardianship.
The Supreme Court analyzed the issue under the general factors for prohibition (Syl. Pt. 3 and 4, State ex rel. Hoover v. Berger, 199 W.Va. 12, 483 S.E.2d 12 (1996)) and found:
1. The circuit court’s order was not a final, appealable judgment, leaving DHS no adequate remedy at law except prohibition.
2. The court clearly erred as a matter of law by imposing financial obligations on DHS without any statutory or regulatory basis.
3. Accordingly, DHS was entitled to a writ of prohibition restraining enforcement of the September 26, 2024 order.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

State ex rel. Hoover v. Berger, 199 W.Va. 12, 483 S.E.2d 12 (1996): The Court recited the test for prohibition—whether a lower tribunal exceeded its legitimate powers or clearly erred as a matter of law, and whether the petitioner lacks any other adequate remedy at law (Syl. Pts. 3 & 4).
West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure 21(d) (limited circumstances for memorandum decision); 41(c) (substitution of parties); and Rule for Child Abuse & Neglect Procedure 49 (appeal deadlines).
Statutory provisions governing private guardianship (W. Va. Code § 44-10-3(f)), definitions of “neglected child” (W. Va. Code § 49-1-201), and “fictive kin” (W. Va. Code § 49-1-206), none of which authorize DHS expenditure for private guardianship expenses.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning unfolded in several steps:

No statutory basis: DHS is created and governed by separate statutory provisions that do not impose financial duties for medical or therapy costs in private guardianships. The controlling statute for appointing a private guardian, W. Va. Code § 44-10-3, provides for appointment when “in the minor’s best interest” based on “extraordinary circumstances” but remains silent on agency payment obligations.
Distinction from abuse and neglect proceedings: A.B. was not in DHS custody or the subject of an ongoing child abuse and neglect case. DHS’s role in abuse and neglect proceedings—and its ability to fund certain services in that context—does not extend to enforceable obligations in private guardianship actions.
No subsidized guardianship: West Virginia law allows a “subsidized guardianship” under abuse and neglect statutes, but A.B. never entered such a program. Without placement in a subsidized guardianship, DHS has no statutory duty to pay guardianship expenses.
Clear legal error: By ordering DHS to pay out-of-network vision therapy, the circuit court exceeded its power. The Court accorded “substantial weight” to this clear error, a central Hoover factor.
Inadequate remedy at law: The circuit court’s order was interlocutory and not appealable. Prohibition was DHS’s only effective remedy to avoid being compelled to pay unauthorized expenses.

3. Impact

This decision carries important implications:

Trial courts must respect statutory boundaries and may not impose financial obligations on DHS or other state agencies without clear legislative authority.
Counsel and guardians should not rely on circuit-court equity power to secure state funding for services in private guardianships; they must look to Medicaid, insurance, or legislative subsidy programs.
It clarifies the scope of the writ of prohibition as a remedy to restrain interlocutory orders that rest on clear errors of law, especially when no direct appeal is available.
The ruling underscores the distinction between abuse and neglect proceedings—where DHS has statutory duties—and private guardianship proceedings—where DHS has none.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Writ of Prohibition: An extraordinary remedy issued by a higher court to prevent a lower court from exceeding its lawful authority.
Private Guardianship: A court-appointed arrangement under W. Va. Code § 44-10-3 by which a responsible third party becomes the guardian of a minor not in state custody, often initiated by family or friends.
Subsidized Guardianship: A program under child abuse and neglect statutes that provides financial support to guardians of children who have been in state custody, not applicable to purely private guardianships.
Out-of-Network Provider: A medical or therapy provider that does not participate in a patient’s insurance plan network, often resulting in higher costs borne by the patient or guardian.
“Clear Error as a Matter of Law”: A standard for reviewing judicial decisions where an appellate court finds that the lower court’s ruling is contrary to established law or lacks any legal foundation.

Conclusion

In State ex rel. West Virginia Department of Human Services v. Delligatti, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals reaffirmed the principle that courts cannot create financial obligations for the DHS in private guardianship proceedings without clear statutory authorization. The decision clarifies the boundaries between abuse and neglect cases—where DHS has funding duties—and private guardianships—where it does not. By granting the writ of prohibition, the Court preserved the integrity of legislative allocation of agency resources and underscored the remedy available when a trial court exceeds its legitimate powers.