Comprehensive Analysis of Grandparental Rights to Subsequent Custodial Hearings in West Virginia: A Statutory and Jurisprudential Review
Executive Summary
The legal landscape regarding the rights of grandparents who have been granted temporary custody to participate in subsequent custodial hearings in West Virginia is a complex tapestry woven from distinct statutory schemes, evolving case law, and constitutional considerations of due process. The determination of these rights is not monolithic; rather, it is fundamentally contingent upon the jurisdictional origin of the custody order—specifically, whether the temporary custody arises from a private domestic relations matter in Family Court under Chapter 48 of the West Virginia Code, or from a state-initiated child abuse and neglect proceeding in Circuit Court under Chapter 49. Furthermore, the legal vehicle utilized to grant custody—whether it be a temporary guardianship under Chapter 44, a temporary parenting plan under Chapter 48, or a placement order under Chapter 49—dictates the specific procedural protections afforded to the grandparent.
This report provides an exhaustive examination of these rights, dissecting the "meaningful opportunity to be heard" standard in abuse and neglect cases, the evidentiary burdens required to terminate temporary guardianships, and the transformative power of the "psychological parent" doctrine. The analysis reveals that while West Virginia law recognizes the vital role of relative caregivers, granting them specific rights to notice and participation, "party status"—and the concomitant rights to cross-examine witnesses and appeal adverse decisions—is not automatic in all proceedings. Grandparents must often navigate a procedural labyrinth, utilizing mechanisms such as motions to intervene and writs of prohibition to elevate their standing from mere observers to active litigants capable of defending their custodial relationship in subsequent hearings.
1. Jurisdictional Foundations: The Bifurcated Legal Framework
To understand the rights of grandparents to subsequent hearings, one must first delineate the jurisdictional boundaries that govern child custody in West Virginia. The state employs a bifurcated system where custody matters may be adjudicated in either the Family Court or the Circuit Court, depending on the nature of the proceedings. This distinction is paramount because the statutory rights to notice, participation, and appeal differ significantly between the two venues.
1.1 Family Court Jurisdiction and Private Custody Disputes
The Family Court system in West Virginia acts as the primary forum for private domestic relations, including divorce, annulment, and separate maintenance, as codified in West Virginia Code § 51-2A-2. In scenarios where a grandparent obtains temporary custody through a private petition—often due to the parents' inability to care for the child without state intervention—the proceedings are governed by Chapter 48.
Under this framework, the grandparent is typically a named party to the action. This status is critical because it inherently confers full procedural due process rights. West Virginia Code § 48-9-203, which governs temporary parenting plans, explicitly mandates that any determination of custodial responsibility "shall be made pursuant to a final hearing" unless there is an agreement between the parties. This statutory language creates a mandatory obligation for the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing before altering a temporary custody order. Consequently, a grandparent holding temporary custody under a Family Court order possesses an unqualified right to be heard, present evidence, and cross-examine witnesses in any subsequent hearing regarding the modification or termination of that order.
Furthermore, the Family Court's authority is subject to specific procedural rules that protect the temporary custodian. The court's order determining allocation of custodial responsibility must be in writing and include specific findings of fact and conclusions of law. This requirement ensures that any modification of the grandparent's temporary custody is subject to appellate review, providing a layer of protection against arbitrary removal.
1.2 Circuit Court Jurisdiction and State Intervention
In stark contrast, when a child is removed from the home by the Department of Human Services (DHS) due to allegations of abuse or neglect, jurisdiction vests exclusively in the Circuit Court under Chapter 49. In this context, grandparents often assume the role of "relative caregivers" or "foster parents" rather than original parties to the petition.
The legal standing of a grandparent in Circuit Court is governed by West Virginia Code § 49-4-601(h), which grants relative caregivers a "meaningful opportunity to be heard". However, this right is legally distinct from "party status." While parties (the biological parents and the DHS) have an automatic right to full participation, relative caregivers occupy a unique statutory tier. They are entitled to notice and an opportunity to speak, but they do not automatically possess the right to cross-examine witnesses or dictate the litigation strategy unless they successfully move to intervene.
1.3 Jurisdictional Priority and Transfer
The interplay between these two courts is governed by Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings. This rule establishes that the Circuit Court retains exclusive jurisdiction over the placement of a child while an abuse and neglect case is pending. If a Family Court has previously granted temporary custody to a grandparent, and subsequently an abuse and neglect petition is filed, the Family Court's jurisdiction is effectively superseded regarding custody matters.
This jurisdictional supremacy can create procedural hazards for grandparents. A grandparent who enjoys full party status in Family Court may find themselves demoted to "caregiver" status upon the initiation of Circuit Court proceedings. To protect their custodial rights in the Circuit Court, they must proactively assert their standing through specific procedural mechanisms, such as filing a motion to intervene or asserting status as a psychological parent, which will be discussed in depth in subsequent sections of this report.
2. The "Right to Be Heard" in Abuse and Neglect Proceedings
The most frequent and contentious area of law regarding grandparent rights in West Virginia involves the interpretation of the "right to be heard" in abuse and neglect proceedings. As relative caregivers often serve as the primary placement for children removed from their biological parents, their ability to participate in hearings determining the child's long-term fate is of paramount importance.
2.1 The Statutory Mandate of § 49-4-601(h)
West Virginia Code § 49-4-601(h) serves as the cornerstone of caregiver rights in Circuit Court. The statute provides: "In any proceeding pursuant to this article... Foster parents, preadoptive parents, and relative caregivers shall also have a meaningful opportunity to be heard".
This provision represents a legislative recognition of the vital role played by relative caregivers. However, the statute creates a bifurcated classification of participants:
Parties with Custodial Rights: The statute first guarantees that "parties having custodial or other parental rights" shall be afforded a meaningful opportunity to be heard, including the opportunity to testify and to present and cross-examine witnesses.
This textual nuance has led to significant litigation regarding the scope of a grandparent's participation. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals has had to clarify whether the "right to be heard" encompasses the full panoply of litigation rights or something more limited.
2.2 Judicial Interpretation: Faircloth and Discretionary Limits
The leading authority on interpreting this statutory right is State ex rel. C.H. v. Faircloth, 240 W. Va. 729 (2018). In this case, the Supreme Court clarified that the "right to be heard" exists independently of intervenor status but is subject to judicial discretion regarding its form.
The Court held that foster parents and relative caregivers who occupy only their statutory role (i.e., have not intervened as parties) are "subject to discretionary limitations on the level and type of participation as determined by the circuit court". This judicial discretion implies that a circuit judge may permit a grandparent to:
Provide a sworn statement or testimony regarding the child's well-being.
Submit a written report or letter to the court.
Speak during the hearing regarding specific issues like visitation or placement.
However, without party status, a grandparent generally cannot compel the court to allow them to:
Cross-examine the DHS caseworker or the biological parents.
Call independent expert witnesses to rebut DHS recommendations.
Object to the admission of evidence.
Dictate the scheduling of hearings.
This distinction is critical for grandparents with temporary custody. While they cannot be silenced—the "opportunity" must be "meaningful"—they are not necessarily drivers of the litigation. Their role is often viewed as informational rather than adversarial, designed to provide the court with pertinent facts about the child's condition and progress in placement.
2.3 Mandatory Notice Requirements
For the right to be heard to be exercisable, the grandparent must be aware that a hearing is taking place. West Virginia statutes impose strict notice requirements on the DHS and the court system regarding relative caregivers.
2.3.1 Permanency Hearings
West Virginia Code § 49-4-608 governs permanency hearings, which are mandated to occur at least every 12 months for children in state custody, or sooner if reasonable efforts to reunify are waived. Subsection (j) of this statute is explicit: "Any foster parent, preadoptive parent or relative providing care for the child shall be given notice of and the right to be heard at the permanency hearing".
This notice requirement is not discretionary. Failure to provide notice to a relative caregiver regarding a permanency hearing constitutes a procedural error that can render the resulting order voidable. The court relies on these hearings to determine the long-term plan for the child—whether that be reunification, adoption, or legal guardianship. Because the outcome of a permanency hearing often directly impacts the grandparent's temporary custody (e.g., by changing the plan to adoption by a different family), the right to notice is a fundamental due process protection.
2.3.2 Table of Required Notices
To clarify the specific hearings where grandparents are entitled to notice, the following table synthesizes the relevant statutory provisions:
| Hearing Type | Statutory Authority | Grandparent Status | Right to Notice? | Scope of Rights |
| Preliminary Hearing | W. Va. Code § 49-4-602 | Relative Caregiver | Yes (if named in petition/order) | Notice of removal and initial placement decision. |
| Adjudicatory Hearing | W. Va. Code § 49-4-601 | Relative Caregiver | Yes | Right to be heard; discretionary cross-examination. |
| Dispositional Hearing | W. Va. Code § 49-4-604 | Relative Caregiver | Yes | Right to be heard regarding placement and best interests. |
| Permanency Hearing | W. Va. Code § 49-4-608 | Relative Caregiver | Mandatory | Explicit statutory right to be heard regarding permanency plan. |
| MDT Meetings | W. Va. Code § 49-4-405 | Custodial Relative | Yes (15 days prior) | Mandatory team member; right to participate in planning. |
| Post-Termination | W. Va. Code § 49-4-114 | Adoption Applicant | Yes | Right to be considered for adoption preference. |
2.4 Practical Implications of Non-Party Status
The limitation of non-party status becomes most acute when a grandparent disagrees with the DHS recommendation. For example, if DHS recommends removing the child from the grandparent's temporary custody to place them with a different foster family, a non-party grandparent may be permitted to voice their objection to the judge. However, because they lack the right to cross-examine the DHS worker or review the full case file (absent a specific court order), they may be unable to effectively challenge the factual basis of the DHS recommendation.
Furthermore, standing to appeal is generally reserved for parties. A grandparent who has merely exercised their right to be heard under § 49-4-601(h) but has not intervened may lack the legal standing to file a petition for appeal with the West Virginia Supreme Court if the Circuit Court rules against them. This reality underscores the necessity for grandparents to seek formal intervention if they wish to secure robust procedural protections.
3. Achieving Party Status: Intervention and Standing
To transcend the limitations of the "right to be heard" and secure full litigant status in subsequent hearings, grandparents with temporary custody must formally move to intervene in the Circuit Court proceedings. Intervention transforms the grandparent from a participant into a party, unlocking rights to discovery, cross-examination, and appeal.
3.1 The Legal Standard for Intervention
Intervention in abuse and neglect proceedings is governed generally by Rule 24 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, as applied through the lens of the Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings. The West Virginia Supreme Court has established specific standards for when foster parents and relative caregivers should be permitted to intervene.
3.1.1 In re Jonathan G. and the "Significant Bond" Test
The seminal case regarding foster parent and relative intervention is In re Jonathan G., 198 W. Va. 716 (1996). In this case, the Supreme Court recognized that a child has a right to continued association with individuals with whom they have formed a close emotional bond, including foster parents and relative caregivers.
The Court held that the level of participation afforded to foster parents/relatives should be commensurate with the relationship they have developed with the child. Specifically, intervention should be considered where:
Substantial Duration: The child has resided with the caregivers for a significant period.
Emotional Bond: A meaningful emotional attachment has formed between the child and the caregivers.
Best Interests: Continued association is in the child's best interests.
While Jonathan G. dealt primarily with foster parents, the principles apply with equal or greater force to grandparents, who possess both the foster/caregiver bond and a biological kinship connection.
3.1.2 State ex rel. C.H. v. Faircloth: Refining the Right
In Faircloth, the Supreme Court reiterated that intervention is discretionary but clarified that foster parents (and by extension, relative caregivers) are entitled to intervention as a matter of right when the statutory time limitations for termination of parental rights are implicated.
Specifically, if a child has been in foster care for 15 of the last 22 months, necessitating the DHS to file for termination of parental rights under W. Va. Code § 49-4-605, the caregivers' interest in the proceedings becomes acute. At this stage, the proceedings shift from reunification (focusing on the parents) to permanency (focusing on the child's future). Consequently, courts are more compelled to grant intervention to grandparents during the dispositional and permanency phases than during the initial adjudicatory phase.
3.2 Procedural Mechanics of Intervention
To intervene, a grandparent must file a written motion with the Circuit Court. The process involves several critical steps and considerations:
Filing the Motion: The motion must be filed pursuant to Rule 24, citing the grandparent's status as the current custodian and the best interests of the child.
Timing: While intervention can be sought at any time, it is most likely to be granted after the grandparent has had custody for a substantial period (often cited as six months or more in relation to psychological parenthood) or when permanency is being decided.
The "Notice of Appearance": Prior to or concurrent with a motion to intervene, legal counsel for the grandparent (or the grandparent pro se) should file a "Notice of Appearance" and a formal "Request for Notice" with the Circuit Clerk. This ensures that even before intervention is ruled upon, the grandparent receives service of all orders and hearing notices, preventing the case from proceeding in their absence.
3.3 Rights Acquired Upon Intervention
Once intervenor status is granted, the grandparent's rights expand dramatically:
Full Discovery Access: Intervenors are parties and thus entitled to access the confidential court file, DHS records, and medical reports regarding the child.
4. The Multidisciplinary Treatment Team (MDT): A Critical Procedural Forum
While courtroom hearings grab the headlines, much of the substantive decision-making in West Virginia child welfare cases occurs in Multidisciplinary Treatment Team (MDT) meetings. For grandparents with temporary custody, the MDT represents a vital "hearing" equivalent where they have specific statutory rights to participation.
4.1 Statutory Composition and Attendance Rights
West Virginia Code § 49-4-405 governs the creation and operation of MDTs. The statute explicitly lists the "custodial relatives of the child" and "foster or preadoptive parents" as mandatory members of the treatment team.
This statutory inclusion confers a right to attend and participate in MDT meetings. The DHS is required to provide notice of these meetings to all team members at least 15 days in advance. This notice requirement is a critical procedural safeguard, ensuring that grandparents are not excluded from the discussions where case plans, visitation schedules, and permanency goals are formulated.
4.2 The Scope of MDT Participation
Participation in the MDT is not passive. Grandparents have the right to:
Receive Information: MDT members are entitled to sign confidentiality agreements and receive relevant information regarding the case plan.
Dissent: If the MDT reaches a consensus that the grandparent disagrees with (e.g., returning the child to a parent prematurely), the grandparent can voice that dissent. While the DHS ultimately recommends the plan to the court, the court is often made aware of MDT dissents, and the grandparent can raise these issues during the subsequent court hearing.
4.3 Consequences of Exclusion
Excluding a custodial grandparent from an MDT meeting is a violation of § 49-4-405. If a grandparent is excluded, they should immediately bring this to the court's attention. Courts have admonished the DHS for failing to include mandatory members in MDT meetings, as this undermines the statutory purpose of collaborative decision-making. A grandparent can file a motion to compel the DHS to include them in future meetings or to void decisions made in meetings where they were improperly excluded.
5. The Psychological Parent Doctrine: Elevating Custodial Status
One of the most potent legal tools available to grandparents with temporary custody in West Virginia is the "Psychological Parent" doctrine. This doctrine acts as a bridge, potentially elevating a grandparent's status from a temporary caregiver to a de facto parent with rights that rival those of a biological parent in subsequent hearings.
5.1 Defining the Psychological Parent
The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals formally adopted and defined this doctrine in In re Clifford K., 217 W. Va. 625 (2005). A psychological parent is defined as a person who, on a continuing, day-to-day basis, through interaction, companionship, interplay, and mutuality, fulfills the child's psychological needs for a parent as well as the child's physical needs.
The Four-Part Test: To be recognized as a psychological parent, a grandparent must generally demonstrate:
Consent: The legal parent consented to and fostered the relationship between the grandparent and the child (or the relationship developed while the child was in state custody).
Cohabitation: The grandparent and child lived together in the same household.
Parental Functions: The grandparent assumed significant responsibility for the child's care, education, and development, including contributing to their support, without expectation of financial compensation.
Bonding: A parent-child bond has been forged such that the child recognizes the grandparent as a parental figure.
5.2 Procedural Impact on Subsequent Hearings
Establishing status as a psychological parent has profound implications for subsequent custodial hearings:
Intervention as of Right: While Jonathan G. provides a basis for intervention for caregivers, Clifford K. strengthens this significantly. A psychological parent is considered an "exceptional case" under W. Va. Code § 48-9-103, justifying intervention and an allocation of custodial responsibility.
5.3 De Facto Custodians and Statutory Parallels
While West Virginia primarily utilizes the "psychological parent" terminology in case law, the concept parallels the "de facto custodian" status found in other jurisdictions and referenced in legislative materials regarding shared parenting. Under West Virginia Code § 48-1-239, regarding parenting plans, the legislature has indicated a policy of maximizing time with "de facto custodians" when devising parenting schedules. This statutory recognition reinforces the judicial doctrine, signaling that grandparents who function as parents are entitled to substantive consideration in all subsequent custodial allocations.
6. Guardianship Termination and Modification Hearings
For grandparents whose temporary custody is codified through a legal guardianship under Chapter 44 of the West Virginia Code, specific statutory provisions govern the hearings required to modify or terminate that status.
6.1 The Burden of Proof under § 44-10-3
West Virginia Code § 44-10-3 establishes the framework for appointing and terminating guardians for minors. Crucially, subsection (j) establishes the burden of proof for terminating a guardianship: "For a petition to revoke or terminate a guardianship filed by a parent, the burden of proof is on the moving party to show by a preponderance of the evidence that there has been a material change of circumstances and that a revocation or termination is in the child's best interest".
This statutory burden is a significant protection for grandparents. It means that a biological parent cannot simply demand the return of their child by asserting their biological rights. They must prove—in an evidentiary hearing—that their circumstances have materially changed (e.g., they have conquered addiction, secured housing) and that disrupting the grandparent's guardianship is in the child's best interest.
6.2 Mandatory Hearing Requirement
The statute further mandates that the court "shall hold a hearing" upon a petition for the appointment or termination of a guardian. This guarantees the grandparent a day in court. The grandparent, as the current legal guardian, is a necessary party to this hearing. They have the right to present evidence rebutting the parent's claims of "material change" and to demonstrate that the child's best interests are served by maintaining the guardianship.
6.3 Temporary Guardianship Extensions
Even where the guardianship is explicitly "temporary" under § 44-10-3(g) (which limits such appointments to six months), a hearing is required to extend or terminate it. The court must find that a "continued need" exists in the best interest of the minor to extend the temporary guardianship beyond the initial six-month period. This ensures that temporary guardianships do not expire silently; they require judicial review, affording the grandparent an opportunity to be heard on the child's status.
7. Grandparent Preference and Adoption Rights
In the context of abuse and neglect proceedings where reunification with parents fails, grandparents with temporary custody have specific rights regarding the subsequent "Permanency Hearing" and adoption selection.
7.1 The Statutory Preference under § 49-4-114
West Virginia Code § 49-4-114(a)(3) creates a statutory preference for grandparent adoption. The statute mandates that for any placement of a child for adoption, the department "shall first consider the suitability and willingness of any known grandparent or grandparents to adopt the child."
Mandatory Actions:
Home Study: Once interested grandparents are identified, the DHS must conduct a home study evaluation.
7.2 Standing to Challenge Agency Failure
If the DHS fails to conduct the mandated home study or ignores the grandparent's request to adopt, the grandparent has standing to challenge this failure in court. In In re M.F. III, the West Virginia Supreme Court remanded a case because the DHS failed to comply with the mandatory language of § 49-4-114(a)(3) requiring a home study for interested grandparents. This case law confirms that grandparents have a right to a hearing to enforce their statutory preference, even if they have not yet been granted permanent custody.
8. Private Custody Disputes: The Family Court Arena
While much of the complex litigation occurs in Circuit Court, grandparents also obtain temporary custody through private Family Court actions under Chapter 48.
8.1 Temporary Parenting Plans and Final Hearings
West Virginia Code § 48-9-203 governs temporary parenting plans. A critical procedural right in this context is the requirement for a final hearing. The statute states: "In the absence of an agreement of the parents, the court's determination of allocation of custodial responsibility under this section shall be made pursuant to a final hearing, which shall be conducted by the presentation of evidence".
This provision ensures that a temporary order granted to a grandparent cannot be modified or made permanent without a full evidentiary hearing, unless the parties agree. Grandparents, as parties to these private actions, have full rights to call witnesses and present evidence at this final hearing.
8.2 Interlocutory Appeals
Unlike the Circuit Court, where non-party appeal rights are limited, Family Court litigants have specific avenues for interlocutory appeal regarding temporary orders. West Virginia Code § 48-9-203(f) allows a parent denied custody to file an interlocutory appeal with the Intermediate Court of Appeals regarding a temporary custodial allocation. While the statute specifically names "parents," a grandparent who acts as a de facto custodian or psychological parent and is a party to the action may arguably utilize similar appellate avenues to challenge an adverse temporary ruling, particularly if it violates the "best interests" standard mandated by § 48-9-209.
9. Appellate Remedies: Protecting the Right to Be Heard
When a lower court fails to respect a grandparent's rights—whether by failing to provide notice, denying intervention, or ignoring the grandparent preference—appellate remedies serve as the enforcement mechanism.
9.1 Standing to Appeal
The right to appeal a final order in an abuse and neglect case is generally limited to parties.
Intervenors: Grandparents who have successfully intervened have full standing to appeal dispositional orders.
9.2 Writ of Prohibition
If a Circuit Court acts in excess of its jurisdiction—for example, by holding a permanency hearing without noticing the custodial grandparent as required by § 49-4-608—the appropriate remedy is often a Writ of Prohibition. This extraordinary writ can halt proceedings or vacate orders entered in violation of statutory mandates. Grandparents effectively use this tool to enforce their procedural rights when the standard appellate route is blocked by their non-party status.
9.3 Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA)
The recent establishment of the West Virginia Intermediate Court of Appeals adds a layer to the appellate process. While the ICA generally hears appeals from Family Court, appeals from abuse and neglect proceedings in Circuit Court typically go directly to the Supreme Court of Appeals due to the urgency of permanency. However, Family Court guardianship appeals may now route through the ICA, providing an additional forum for review.
10. Conclusion and Strategic Synthesis
The rights of grandparents with temporary custody to subsequent hearings in West Virginia are robust but procedurally demanding. The law does not treat all temporary custodians equally; rather, it stratifies rights based on the court system (Circuit vs. Family) and the legal status of the grandparent (Party vs. Caregiver vs. Psychological Parent).
Grandparents in Circuit Court abuse and neglect proceedings possess a statutory right to notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard, but they must proactively move to intervene to secure the full rights of a party, including cross-examination and appeal. The Psychological Parent doctrine and the Grandparent Preference statute provide powerful substantive arguments to retain custody, but these must be asserted effectively in hearings to which the grandparent has secured access.
In Family Court and Guardianship proceedings, grandparents generally enjoy clearer party status, with statutory mandates for evidentiary hearings prior to the termination or modification of their custody. The burden of proof often shifts to the parent to demonstrate a material change in circumstances, providing the grandparent with a defensible legal position.
Ultimately, the "right to a hearing" is guaranteed, but the nature of that hearing—whether it is a full trial with witness testimony or a brief opportunity to speak—depends entirely on the grandparent's ability to navigate the procedural landscape and assert the specific statutory and equitable designations that West Virginia law affords them.
Note on Authorities: This report relies on the West Virginia Code (Chapters 44, 48, 49, 51, 53, 58), the Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings, and pertinent case law including In re Jonathan G., State ex rel. C.H. v. Faircloth, In re Clifford K., and In re H.W.. Citations are embedded throughout the text to substantiate all legal claims.
Caregivers and Foster Parents: The statute then states that foster parents and relative caregivers shall also have a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Notably, the text regarding caregivers does not explicitly include the phrase "including the opportunity to testify and to present and cross-examine witnesses" in the same mandatory clause as it does for parties.
Cross-Examination: Unlike the limited right to be heard, intervenors have the statutory right to cross-examine all witnesses, including the DHS workers and biological parents.
Calling Witnesses: Intervenors may subpoena their own experts, therapists, or family members to testify regarding the child's best interests.
Appellate Standing: Perhaps most importantly, intervenors have standing to appeal final orders to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. This right is generally denied to non-party participants.
Contribute to the Case Plan: The MDT is responsible for developing the comprehensive, individualized service plan for the child. Grandparents can advocate for specific services for the child (e.g., therapy, tutoring) or argue against changes in visitation that would disrupt the child's stability.
Right to Continued Association: Once a psychological parent relationship is established, the individual has a right to continued association with the child. This means that even if the child is returned to a biological parent, the psychological parent is entitled to a hearing to determine visitation or shared custody arrangements.
rotection Against Removal: If the state attempts to remove a child from a psychological parent to place them with a stranger or a less-bonded relative, the psychological parent has a robust legal argument that such removal is contrary to the child's best interests. The court must weigh the trauma of severing this psychological bond against other factors.
Offer of Placement: If the home study determines the grandparents are suitable, the department must assure that the grandparents are offered the placement of the child prior to considering other prospective adoptive parents.
Non-Parties: Grandparents who were merely "heard" but not granted party status generally lack standing to appeal the substantive merits of a custody decision. Their remedy lies in challenging the denial of intervention itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment