Caseflicks

West Virginia Supreme Court • 2015

In Re K.H.

235 W. Va. 254 | 773 S.E.2d 20 | 2015 W. Va. LEXIS 256

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case restores custody to a fit father but holds that an eight-year guardian who functioned as the child’s parent is a psychological parent entitled to meaningful continuing visitation when that relationship serves the child’s best interests.

Background

K.H.’s mother and brother died in a 2007 automobile accident when K.H. was about fifteen months old. K.H.’s maternal grandmother promptly sought and received guardianship. Although K.H.’s father appeared at the guardianship hearing, he did not object. He had had little contact with K.H. during her first year, but he later began exercising parenting time, paying support, and seeking a larger role in her life.

An agreed 2009 custody order gave the grandmother primary custody and the father regular parenting time. A later agreed order expanded the father’s time. In 2013, the father petitioned again to terminate the guardianship. After investigation, the guardian ad litem recommended placing K.H. with the father, concluding that he could provide a stable home and that guardianship was no longer needed. The grandmother’s psychologist testified that K.H. had a strong bond with her grandmother and regarded her as “mom,” though the psychologist had not met the father.

The family court terminated the grandmother’s eight-year guardianship, awarded full custody to the father, denied the grandmother psychological-parent status, and provided only a temporary transition schedule rather than continuing visitation. The circuit court refused the grandmother’s appeal. The grandmother appealed to the West Virginia Supreme Court, challenging the termination, the denial of psychological-parent status, and the absence of continuing visitation.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the family court erred by terminating the grandmother’s guardianship without properly considering K.H.’s best interests and material changed circumstances under West Virginia Code § 44-10-3.

Holding

No. The family court adequately considered K.H.’s best interests and the material changes in the father’s involvement, so terminating the guardianship and granting custody to the father was neither clearly erroneous nor an abuse of discretion.

Reasoning

The statute governing termination of a minor guardianship was amended after the father filed his petition but before the hearings. The amended statute expressly required a parent seeking termination to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, a material change in circumstances and that termination would be in the child’s best interests. But those considerations were also required under preexisting West Virginia custody law, including the Court’s decision in In re Haylea G.

Although the family court did not precisely identify the statutory basis for its ruling, its findings showed that it considered both required factors. It recognized the need to balance the father’s constitutional parental rights against K.H.’s welfare and found that the father had steadily assumed substantial parental and caretaking responsibilities over several years.

The record supported the finding that circumstances had materially changed. The father had progressed from minimal early involvement to regular parenting time, financial support, health-insurance coverage, payment of K.H.’s private-school expenses, and the ability to provide an appropriate home. The guardian ad litem independently investigated and recommended custody with the father, and later reported that K.H. preferred to live with him while still wanting additional time with her grandmother.

A child’s welfare is the paramount consideration in a custody dispute, but a fit natural parent’s custody rights are also fundamental. On this record, the Court found no clear error or abuse of discretion in concluding that K.H. no longer needed the protection of a guardianship and that custody should return to her father.

Issue #2

Whether the grandmother qualified as K.H.’s psychological parent.

Holding

Yes. The family court clearly erred in finding that the grandmother’s relationship with K.H. was temporary and lacked parental consent; the grandmother was K.H.’s psychological parent.

Reasoning

Under In re Clifford K., a psychological parent is someone who continuously fulfills a child’s parental psychological and physical needs and provides emotional and financial support. The relationship must be substantial rather than temporary, and it must have begun with the consent and encouragement of the child’s legal parent or guardian.

The grandmother met that standard. From K.H.’s birth through eight years of guardianship, she served in every practical parental capacity. She provided K.H.’s day-to-day care and formed a deep, parent-like bond with her. The fact that the father gradually exercised more custodial responsibility did not make the grandmother’s long-standing relationship temporary.

The relationship also began with sufficient parental consent. Before her death, K.H.’s mother sought the grandmother’s assistance and encouraged the relationship. The father, who initially was not involved in K.H.’s life, did not object to the grandmother’s guardianship and later entered agreed custody orders recognizing the grandmother’s continuing role. Thus, the evidence established the consent element as well as the substantial-duration element.

Issue #3

Whether the grandmother’s psychological-parent status entitled her and K.H. to continued visitation after the guardianship ended.

Holding

Yes. The grandmother and K.H. were entitled to continuing, liberal visitation, subject to a schedule fashioned by the family court with appropriate regard for the father’s parental rights and K.H.’s best interests.

Reasoning

Psychological-parent status does not automatically overcome a fit biological parent’s superior right to custody. Rather, it recognizes that a person who has occupied a genuine parental role may have a basis to seek continued association when that relationship serves the child’s welfare. The Court therefore affirmed custody in the father while separately considering K.H.’s interest in maintaining her bond with her grandmother.

West Virginia precedent, particularly Honaker v. Burnside and In re Antonio R.A., recognizes that a child may have an important interest in continuing contact with a nonparent who has been a significant figure in the child’s life. Visitation is not awarded merely to benefit the adult; it exists to preserve a relationship that may be vital to the child’s emotional well-being, stability, and sense of continuity.

The Court acknowledged Troxel v. Granville and the constitutional protection afforded a fit parent’s decisions about a child’s care and custody. Troxel requires courts to give special weight to a fit parent’s preferences and prohibits overriding those preferences based solely on a court’s independent best-interests assessment. But it does not require that every nonparent-visitation dispute end in complete exclusion of the nonparent.

Here, continued visitation could be structured without substantially interfering with the father’s custody or fundamentally impairing his parental rights. The grandmother had been K.H.’s parent-like caretaker for eight years, K.H. wished to spend more time with her, and the family court’s transition schedule had expired without providing ongoing contact. Those circumstances supported liberal, meaningful visitation.

The Court remanded for the family court to establish a visitation schedule promptly. It directed the family court to merge and consider the grandmother’s separate statutory petition for grandparent visitation, to account for the parties’ schedules and K.H.’s school and home life, and to design a plan that promotes K.H.’s emotional adjustment while minimizing disruption.