Opinion ID: 2506803
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Biological Father's Rights

Text: The first issue before the Court is whether the circuit court erred in denying the Appellant Father custody of his biological child M.P., where there were no allegations of abuse or neglect against the Appellant Father. Both the Appellant DHHR and the Appellant Father argue that the circuit court failed to consider that as the biological father, the Appellant Father has a fundamental right to custody of his son where there are no allegations of abuse and neglect against him. [9] While not a model of clarity and with virtually no reasoning, it appears that the Appellee Grandparents, in their appellate brief, argued that the father failed to follow through on his duty to care for and support his child and thus the circuit court did not err in awarding them custody of M.P. The Appellee Grandparents advance this argument despite the fact that the biological father had no knowledge that he was M.P.'s father until the March 2010 hearing. In syllabus point one of In re Willis, 157 W.Va. 225, 207 S.E.2d 129 (1973), this Court held: In the law concerning custody of minor children, no rule is more firmly established than that the right of a natural parent to the custody of his or her infant child is paramount to that of any other person; it is a fundamental personal liberty protected and guaranteed by the Due Process Clauses of the West Virginia and United States Constitutions. Id. at 225, 207 S.E.2d at 130-131, Syl. Pt. 1. While this right is not absolute it is limited or terminated by the State, as [p]arens patriae, if the parent is proved unfit to be entrusted with child care. Id. at 225, 207 S.E.2d at 131, in part, Syl. Pt. 5. Thus, the Court further stated in Honaker v. Burnside, 182 W.Va. 448, 388 S.E.2d 322 (1989), that [a]lthough the welfare of the child is of immeasurable importance, another important principle which must be considered is that of a natural parent's right to raise his or her own child. The right of a parent to the custody of his or her child is based on natural law and arises because the child is his or hers to care for and rear, . . . State ex rel. Harmon v. Utterback, 144 W.Va. 419, 426, 108 S.E.2d 521, 526 (1959). Although the polar star concept is adhered to by this Court in child custody cases, we have refused to apply it in cases where the parents have not abandoned the child or have in no manner been proved to be unfit to have the care and custody of such child. Hammack v. Wise, 158 W.Va. 343, 347, 211 S.E.2d 118, 121 (1975). This concept will not be invoked to deprive an unoffending parent of his natural right to the custody of his child. Hammack, 158 W.Va. at 347, 211 S.E.2d at 121. Honaker, 182 W.Va. at 451, 388 S.E.2d at 324. In the instant case, it is undisputed that J.G. is the biological father of M.P. Further, the record is devoid of any allegations of abuse and neglect committed by J.G. [10] To the contrary, the Appellant Father and his wife have been approved as foster care parents. Succinctly stated, there is nothing in the record which supports a finding that the Appellant Father is not a suitable biological parent who has the right to custody of his natural child, M.P. Thus, the circuit court erred in not granting the Appellant Father custody of his child. It is equally important that the Court also consider whether it is in the best interests of M.P. to a continued relationship with his siblings. Honaker, 182 W.Va. at 452, 388 S.E.2d at 325 (The best interests of the child concept with regard to visitation emerges from the reality that `[t]he modern child is considered a person, not a sub-person over whom the parent has an absolute and irrevocable possessory right. The child has rights. . . .'). This right is grounded in the best interests of the child as well as `the need for stability in the child's life. . . . [T]ermination of visitation with individuals to whom the child was close would contribute to instability rather than provide stability.' Id. at 452, 388 S.E.2d at 326 (quoting Note, Visitation Beyond the Traditional Limitations, 60 Ind.L.J. 191, 221-22 (1984)). To that end, in James M. v. Maynard, 185 W.Va. 648, 408 S.E.2d 400 (1991), the Court held in syllabus point four that [i]n cases where there is a termination of parental rights, the circuit court should consider whether continued association with siblings in other placements is in the child's best interests, and if such continued association is in such child's best interests, the court should enter an appropriate order to preserve the rights of siblings to continued contact. Id. at 649, 408 S.E.2d at 401. In the instant matter, both the Appellant DHHR and the guardian ad litem recommended that it would be in the best interests of M.P. to have continued visitation with his siblings. M.P. has grown up with his siblings, having never been separated from them. Under these circumstances where siblings have been together their entire lives, there is a strong presumption that it is in the best interests of the children that they maintain their sibling relationship through continued visitation if possible. Consequently, on remand, the Court directs the circuit court to consider the continued association of M.P. with his siblings under the presumption that the continued association of M.P. with his siblings is in all the children's best interests. If the circuit court determines that continued visitation between M.P. and his siblings is in the best interest of the children, the Court should develop an appropriate sibling visitation plan that will provide for meaningful continued contact between M.P. and his siblings so the siblings are not denied a continued relationship.