State ex rel. L.D. v. Cohee
Decision Date | 02 December 2022 |
Docket Number | 22-559 |
Parties | State ex rel. L.D. v. Cohee |
Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Brooke B. v. Ray, 230 W.Va. 355, 361-62, 738 S.E.2d 21, 27-28 (2013) ( ). As this Court said in 1925, "we must not lose sight of the rule that obtains in most jurisdictions at the present day, that the welfare of the child is to be regarded more than the technical legal rights of the parent." Connor v Harris, 100 W.Va. 313, 317, 130 S.E. 281, 283 (1925).
(emphasis added.)[2] See Syl. pts. 4 and 5, In re C.S., __ W.Va.__, 875 S.E.2d 350 (2022) ( ). The majority correctly found the statute does not apply to this case because the action had only been pending for fourteen months when DHHR sought to return the child to the parents' custody.
Still, the Legislature has not defined "foster care" in Chapter 49 and, in the context of this case, the term appears ambiguous. After discussing the law with my colleagues, we have identified two competing but equally plausible interpretations of "foster care."
On the one hand, the interpretation offered by the parties is to say that "kinship" or relative placement is not "foster care" under West Virginia Code § 49-4-605(a)(1). In this case, DHHR placed the child with a relative (a cousin of the father's) after taking her from her parents' custody. The parties assert that because DHHR had placed the child in "kinship" care with a relative, and not with a stranger, the child was not in "foster care" and DHHR was not bound by the fifteen-month rule in West Virginia Code § 49-4-605(a)(1).
Justice Walker recently discussed this interpretation in her concurrence to re H.W., ___ W.Va. ___, ___, 875 S.E.2d 247, 260 (2022) ( ). Justice Walker agreed that "foster care" is not defined, but noted that since at least 2015, "foster family home" had been defined as "a private residence which is used for the care on a residential basis of not more than six children who are unrelated by blood, marriage, or adoption to any adult member of the household." W.Va. Code 49-1-206 (emphasis added). She also pointed out that a "foster parent" is defined as nothing more than a person certified by DHHR "to provide foster care." However, the abuse and neglect statutes define a "kinship parent" as a person chosen "to provide kinship placement," that is, "the placement of the child with a relative of the child . . . or a placement of a child with a fictive kin[.]" __ W.Va. at__, 875 S.E.2d at 262 (quoting W.Va. Code § 49-1-206). Justice Walker concluded that if one construes the various statutes pertaining to kinship and foster placement together, it appears that the Legislature intended for a relative, kinship placement to be distinct from a foster placement with non-relatives. Taken together, the term "foster care" in West Virginia Code § 49-4-605(a)(1) could be narrowly interpreted to encompass only placement of a child with non-relatives. Hence, if DHHR gives a child a kinship placement with a relative, then the assertion can be made that DHHR and the courts are not bound by the fifteen-month rule; the child can be left in the kinship placement indefinitely. That is the position taken by the petitioner in this action.
On the other hand, while the foregoing interpretation is inherently logical, it is contrary to the polar-star principle of every abuse and neglect action: expeditiously finding what is in the best interests of the child. This polar star applies also in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial