Reinforcing Grandparent Placement Statutory Findings: In re A.F.

Introduction

In In re A.F., the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia addressed whether a circuit court must expressly consider the grandparent placement preference codified at West Virginia Code § 49-4-114(a)(3) when denying a grandparent’s request for custody of a child in an abuse and neglect proceeding.

Background:

  • Parties: Petitioners P.F. and R.F. (maternal grandparents), the West Virginia Department of Human Services (DHS), the Guardian Ad Litem for the child A.F., and the foster parents K.B. and M.B.
  • Procedural Posture: The circuit court denied grandparents’ motions for visitation and custody after parental rights of the mother were terminated. Petitioners appealed.
  • Key Issue: Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by failing to make detailed findings and conclusions showing it considered—and properly overrode—the statutory grandparent preference in West Virginia Code § 49-4-114(a)(3).

Summary of the Judgment

On June 6, 2025, in an opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wooton, the Supreme Court of Appeals unanimously vacated the circuit court’s November 8, 2023 order and remanded with instruction to enter a new custody order. The Supreme Court held that:

  • The grandparent preference statute (§ 49-4-114(a)(3)) creates a presumption that placement with suitable grandparents is in the child’s best interests once parental rights are terminated.
  • That presumption may only be overcome by evidence demonstrating placement with grandparents would not serve the child’s best interests.
  • Circuit courts must make detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law showing (1) they considered the statutory preference, (2) they reviewed the record in its entirety, and (3) they identified specific reasons why the preference was overcome.

Because the circuit court’s order contained only conclusory statements—citing length of time in foster care and alleged lack of bond—the Supreme Court found the order inadequate to demonstrate statutory compliance.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

  • Burgess v. Porterfield, 196 W. Va. 178, 469 S.E.2d 114 (1996): Standards of appellate review in child custody appeals (abuse of discretion for ultimate disposition; clearly erroneous for facts; de novo for law).
  • Nichols v. Nichols, 160 W. Va. 514, 236 S.E.2d 36 (1977): Child custody matters lie within the sound discretion of the circuit court.
  • Carter v. Carter, 196 W. Va. 239, 470 S.E.2d 193 (1996): Paramount principle—the best interests of the child govern custody and visitation decisions.
  • Napoleon S. v. Walker, 217 W. Va. 254, 617 S.E.2d 801 (2005): Established the grandparent preference and explained that placement with grandparents is presumptively in the child’s best interests, requiring courts to overcome that preference only with record‐wide evidence.
  • In re P.F., 243 W. Va. 569, 848 S.E.2d 826 (2020): Reversed denial of grandparent placement where court made no statutory findings.
  • In re Edward B., 210 W. Va. 621, 558 S.E.2d 620 (2001): Emphasized the necessity for clear, complete findings in dispositional orders for appellate review.
  • In re K.S., 246 W. Va. 517, 874 S.E.2d 319 (2022) and In re E.H., 247 W. Va. 456, 880 S.E.2d 922 (2022): Reinforced that skeletal or conclusory orders fail to satisfy statutory mandates in child welfare cases.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning flowed from two core principles:

  1. Statutory Presumption:
    When parental rights are terminated, § 49-4-114(a)(3) requires the DHS—and ultimately the court—to give first consideration to any interested grandparents whose home study shows they would be “suitable adoptive parents.” The statute contemplates that placement with grandparents is presumptively in the child’s best interests.
  2. Overcoming the Presumption:
    The only way to overcome this presumption is to demonstrate—on the record as a whole—that placement with grandparents is not in the best interests of the child. That demonstration must be reflected in an order containing detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

In the instant case, the circuit court’s brief order merely cited: (1) the child’s length of time with foster parents, (2) the absence of a bond or request to see grandparents, and (3) pre‐existing DHS concerns about the grandparents’ home. The Supreme Court concluded that these cursory remarks did not show the court properly applied or overcame the grandparent preference, and therefore constituted an abuse of discretion requiring remand.

Impact

In re A.F. carries several significant implications for future abuse and neglect and placement proceedings:

  • Enhanced Judicial Accountability: Circuit courts must now explicitly demonstrate compliance with § 49-4-114(a)(3) in every permanency order involving grandparent requests following parental rights termination.
  • Clear Appellate Record: The requirement of detailed findings ensures that appellate courts can meaningfully review whether the grandparent preference was properly considered and, if necessary, overcome.
  • Strengthened Grandparent Rights: Reinforces the legislative presumption in favor of suitable grandparents, encouraging DHS and courts to give due weight to family preservation where appropriate.
  • Best Interests Framework: Affirms that the “best interests of the child” standard must be tethered to—and not override—the explicit statutory preferences and processes enacted by the Legislature.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Abuse of Discretion: An appellate court will defer to a trial court’s decision unless it is arbitrary, unreasonable, or fails to follow legal principles.
  • Statutory Presumption: A legal assumption—in this case, that grandparents are the preferred adoptive placement—standing unless disproven by a full review of the evidence.
  • Home Study Evaluation: A licensed social worker’s assessment of a prospective caregiver’s living conditions, criminal background, parenting history, and fitness to care for the child.
  • Best Interests of the Child: A holistic, child‐centered analysis considering stability, emotional bonds, developmental needs, safety, and continuity of care.
  • Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: A written order must identify specific facts the court relied upon and articulate the legal rule it applied, enabling meaningful appellate review.

Conclusion

In re A.F. clarifies and reinforces the Legislature’s intent behind West Virginia Code § 49-4-114(a)(3): grandparents who seek to adopt a child after parental rights have been terminated enjoy a statutory presumption in their favor, subject only to a best‐interests determination grounded in the entire record. Circuit courts must now supply comprehensive factual findings and legal analysis when denying such placement, thereby ensuring transparency, adherence to statutory mandates, and protection of children’s welfare.