Opinion ID: 2506624
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Psychological Parent Analysis

Text: The petitioners do not dispute that Gina H. has certain rights as a biological parent. Nevertheless, they contend that the lower courts erred by failing to consider Carol G.'s role as Antonio's psychological parent. A psychological parent is a person who, on a continuing day-to-day basis, through interaction, companionship, interplay, and mutuality, fulfills a child's psychological and physical needs for a parent and provides for the child's emotional and financial support. The psychological parent may be a biological, adoptive, or foster parent, or any other person. The resulting relationship between the psychological parent and the child must be of substantial, not temporary, duration and must have begun with the consent and encouragement of the child's legal parent or guardian. To the extent that this holding is inconsistent with our prior decision of In re Brandon L.E., 183 W.Va. 113, 394 S.E.2d 515 (1990), that case is expressly modified. Syl. Pt. 3, In re Clifford K., 217 W.Va. 625, 619 S.E.2d 138 (2005). This Court has previously held that [i]n exceptional cases and subject to the court's discretion, a psychological parent may intervene in a custody proceeding brought pursuant to W. Va.Code § 48-9-103 (2001) (Repl.Vol.2004) when such intervention is likely to serve the best interests of the child(ren) whose custody is under adjudication. Id. at Syl. Pt. 4. Here, the petitioners contend that Carol G. is Antonio's psychological parent, as she is the person he lived with for over ten years of his life and is the person he would choose to live with now. Relying on a recent Memorandum Decision issued by this Court in In the Interest of Robert H., Slip. Op. 101469 (W.Va. filed April 1, 2011), the petitioners contend that, as Antonio's psychological parent, Carol G. should be appointed as his guardian. In Robert H., a biological father appealed a circuit court's order granting guardianship of his son to the child's maternal great-aunt and great-uncle. Id. at 1. The child, Robert H., first went to live with his great-aunt and great-uncle after his mother lost custody due to drug problems. Id. Although his father, the petitioner, was granted custody at that time, the father made an arrangement with the great-aunt and great-uncle to care for Robert H., as the father was frequently away for long periods of time as a result of his employment as a long-haul truck driver. Id. After several years of this living arrangement, the great-aunt and great-uncle filed a petition for guardianship alleging that they were Robert H.'s psychological parents. Id. at 2. While the circuit court found the petitioner had not abandoned Robert H. or otherwise engaged in abuse or neglect, it found that Robert H. had bonded with the great-aunt and great-uncle, that he was thriving in their care, and that they were his psychological parents. Id. Thus, the circuit court appointed the great-aunt and great-uncle as Robert H.'s permanent guardians. Id. On appeal, the father argued that, as the child's biological parent who has not been found to be abusive or neglectful, he is entitled to the custody of Robert H. Id. This Court, however, upheld the circuit court's ruling, finding that the father had voluntarily transferred custody of Robert H. to the great-aunt and great-uncle, thereby relinquishing his natural right to the custody of his child under Whiteman v. Robinson, 145 W.Va. 685, 116 S.E.2d 691, Syllabus (A parent has the natural right to the custody of his or her infant child and, unless the parent . . . has transferred, relinquished or surrendered such custody, the right of the parent to the custody of his or her infant child will be recognized and enforced by the courts.). Slip. Op. 101469 at 3. After concluding that the great-aunt and great-uncle were, in fact, the child's psychological parents, the Court affirmed the appointment of the great-aunt and great-uncle as Robert H.'s guardians, noting that such arrangement was in the child's best interests. Id. The petitioners in the instant case argue that, like the great-aunt and great-uncle in Robert H., Carol G. should be appointed as Antonio's guardian. Unlike the child in Robert H., however, Antonio had been living with his mother, Gina H., for the three years preceding the filing of the guardianship petition. While Carol G. might have been able to succeed under this theory during the approximately ten years that Antonio lived with her, at this point in time, this Court cannot find that Gina H. has voluntarily transferred or relinquished custody of Antonio. Nevertheless, the Court is sympathetic to Antonio's desire to have a continued relationship with his grandmother, who appears to have been his psychological parent for many years. While the lower courts did not err in denying Carol G.'s petition for guardianship, Antonio may be entitled to visitation with her. As previously discussed, this Court ruled in Honaker v. Burnside that the biological father of the child at issue was entitled to custody. 182 W.Va. at 451, 388 S.E.2d at 325. It further held, however, that the best interests of the child may, in certain cases, necessitate visitation with other parties: [a]lthough custody of minor child should be with the natural parent absent proof of abandonment or some form of misconduct or neglect, the child may have a right to continued visitation rights with the stepparent or half-sibling. Id. at Syl. Pt. 2. Likewise, Antonio has a right to continued visitation with his grandmother, Carol G., who appears to have served as his psychological parent for much of his life. Moreover, Article 10 of Chapter 48 of the West Virginia Code sets forth specific procedures governing court ordered visitation for grandparents and grandchildren. Consequently, although Gina H. has properly been awarded custody of Antonio, several other legal avenues exist by which Carol G. may seek to protect her relationship with her grandson. The family court should schedule a hearing as soon as possible to establish a schedule for visitation between Antonio and Carol G. As a final matter, representations made by the parties during oral argument indicate that Gina H. continues to have a strained relationship with her son, Antonio. Consequently, if given the opportunity, the family court should consider ordering further counseling for Antonio and Gina H. to aid them in establishing a better parent-child relationship.