Reinstatement of the Parental-Fitness Presumption After Rehabilitation – Commentary on In re A.H. (Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, 2025)

1. Introduction

In re A.H. presented the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia with a difficult post-abuse-and-neglect custody battle following the tragic death of a mother who had previously been awarded sole custody. The competing parties were:

• Petitioners: T.W. (maternal uncle) and A.W. (his wife), seeking permanent guardianship.
• Respondent Father: Rehabilitated from opioid addiction, asking the circuit court to modify the old parenting plan and return the child to his custody.
• Intervenors: Maternal aunt and maternal grandmother, both supporting placement with the uncle.

Central issues included:

• Whether a parent who was once adjudicated unfit regains the constitutional presumption that a currently fit parent acts in the child’s best interests;
• What evidentiary showing is required to prove present fitness and sobriety after addiction treatment;
• How the “best interest of the child” analysis intersects with constitutional parental rights when non-parents seek custody.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Affirming the circuit court, the Supreme Court held:

1. The father was properly found fit based on uncontradicted testimonial and documentary evidence of three years’ sobriety, stable employment, and suitable housing.
2. The circuit court correctly applied the Troxel v. Granville presumption that fit parents act in their child’s best interests; that presumption is not permanently forfeited by a prior unfitness finding once rehabilitation is demonstrated.
3. The best-interest analysis—considering statutory factors, the child’s limited preference, and relatives’ failure to protect the child during the mother’s relapse—supported awarding permanent custody to the father.

Consequently, the uncle’s guardianship petition was denied and the child was ordered to reside permanently with her father in Florida.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

• Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)
  – Recognized the fundamental liberty interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children and articulated the presumption that fit parents act in their child’s best interests.
• In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011)
  – Established the standard of review in abuse-and-neglect appeals (clear-error for facts; de novo for law).
• Michael D.C. v. Wanda L.C., 201 W. Va. 381, 497 S.E.2d 531 (1997)
  – Emphasized deference to the trial court’s credibility findings.
• In re R.H., 235 W. Va. 254, 773 S.E.2d 20 (2015)
  – Clarified that Troxel does not “predispose” every outcome in favor of the natural parent; best interests must still be examined.
• Honaker v. Burnside, 182 W. Va. 448, 388 S.E.2d 322 (1989)
  – Restated the natural-parent preference absent unfitness.
• In re J.A., 242 W. Va. 226, 833 S.E.2d 487 (2019)
  – Addressed the weight to be given to a minor’s placement preferences.
• In re D.S., 914 S.E.2d 701 (W. Va. 2025)
  – Reiterated deferential appellate review in abuse-and-neglect cases (cited for standard).

3.2 Legal Reasoning

1. Material Change in Circumstances
   The mother’s death automatically altered the previous custody arrangement. Rule 46 of the Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings empowered the circuit court to revisit custody to serve the child’s best interests.
2. Rehabilitation and Present Fitness
   The court weighed:
   • Three years’ consistent medical treatment (Subutex) verified by a provider;
   • Negative drug screens, even though not random/observed—a potential weakness but counterbalanced by corroborating lay testimony;
   • Stable income, co-housing with the paternal grandparents, and the child’s own room;
   • Mother-sanctioned overnight visits demonstrating practical parenting ability.
   This satisfied West Virginia’s definition of a fit and safe parent.
3. Presumption Revived
   Once current fitness was established, the constitutional presumption recognized in Troxel re-attached. The Court explicitly rejected the petitioners’ argument that a historic finding of unfitness forever destroys the presumption.
4. Best Interests Analysis
   Even with the presumption, the Court evaluated:
   • Strength of the child’s bonds to the maternal family versus the father;
   • Child’s preference (age 9) given some but not decisive weight;
   • Relatives’ knowledge of the mother’s ongoing drug abuse and their inaction, which undermined their claim to serve the child’s best interests;
   • Father’s proactive efforts immediately after the mother’s death.
   Collectively, these factors outweighed the advantages of placement with the uncle/aunt in Maine.

3.3 Impact of the Decision

• Rehabilitation Pathway Clarified
  Parents previously adjudicated unfit now have a clear judicial roadmap: demonstrable, sustained rehabilitation can restore the fundamental-rights presumption.
• Burdens on Non-Parents
  Third-party relatives must assemble stronger, child-focused evidence—mere historical allegations or a child’s preference will seldom overcome the revived constitutional presumption.
• Guidance for Circuit Courts
  The opinion stresses: (a) create a robust factual record on current parental condition; (b) maintain best-interest analysis, but only after fitness is assessed; (c) articulate why a child’s stated fears or preferences are or are not credited.
• Practical Implications for Abuse-and-Neglect Practice
  Counsel representing rehabilitated parents will rely on In re A.H. to argue for dismissal of guardianship/third-party petitions. Agencies and GALs must independently test current parental fitness before recommending against reunification.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Material Change in Circumstances – A significant event (e.g., death of a custodian, relocation, relapse) that legally justifies revisiting an existing custody order.
• Fitness – A factual finding that the parent is currently capable of safely meeting the child’s physical, emotional, and developmental needs.
• Presumption – A legal starting point; here, that a fit parent will act in the child’s best interests. Opposing parties must rebut it with compelling evidence.
• Improvement Period – A statutory timeframe in West Virginia abuse-and-neglect cases during which a parent undertakes services to remedy conditions that led to the petition.
• Subutex/Suboxone Treatment – FDA-approved medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder; courts often scrutinize compliance and drug-screen results to gauge sobriety.

5. Conclusion

In re A.H. cements an important doctrine: the constitutional presumption favoring natural parents is not irrevocably lost by a past unfitness finding; once rehabilitation is proven, the presumption revives. The ruling re-balances the interplay between a parent’s fundamental rights and the child-focused best-interest standard, placing the evidentiary onus squarely on non-parents to demonstrate ongoing unfitness or clear detriment. In West Virginia and potentially beyond, the decision will guide courts, litigants, and child-welfare agencies in post-dependency custody disputes where parents seek a second chance after overcoming addiction or other deficits. Ultimately, the case underscores that the law rewards meaningful rehabilitation while still safeguarding children through careful, individualized best-interest review.