Opinion ID: 1355802
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Delegation of Duties to a Private Agency

Text: In its orders, the circuit court concluded that the Department has become so emotionally involved in this case that they cannot be objective, and criticized the Department for want[ing] to terminate parental rights or do nothing. To address this problem, the circuit court delegated responsibility to a private agency, Action Youth Care, to establish and carry out a plan for reunifying George with the appellee parents. [4] The Department appeals the circuit court's orders contending that our abuse and neglect statutes, W.Va.Code, 49-6-1, et seq., place any decisions about the safety of at-risk children solely within the discretion of the circuit court once a petition has been filed. The Department argues that the circuit court cannot delegate that authority to another agency, particularly a private company. We agree. This Court has repeatedly stated that when a petition alleging abuse and neglect has been filed, a circuit court has a duty to safeguard the child and provide for his or her best interests. See, e.g., State ex rel. Paul B. v. Hill, 201 W.Va. 248, 257-58, 496 S.E.2d 198, 207-8 (1997) (circuit courts have an obligation to consider the best interests of the child [as] paramount, and a circuit court cannot ... ignore its parens patriae duty to protect the best interests of [the child].). Furthermore, circuit courts are statutorily charged with promptly ruling upon the merits of an abuse and neglect petition, W.Va. Code, 49-6-2 [1996], and if abuse or neglect is found, crafting a disposition to achieve an appropriate placement of an abused and/or neglected child. W.Va.Code, 49-6-5 [1998]. In the instant case, the circuit court concluded that George could be at risk if quickly returned to the custody of his parents, and determined that a gradual transition period was needed to give George, and the appellees, a sufficient adjustment period. We have previously approved of gradual changes in the custody of children. For example, in Honaker v. Burnside, 182 W.Va. 448, 450-51, 388 S.E.2d 322, 324 (1989), a case where there were no allegations of abuse or neglect, we approved of a gradual, 6-month transition of custody of a child between her step-father and natural father when the child's natural mother had died. Similarly, in James M. v. Maynard, 185 W.Va. 648, 408 S.E.2d 400 (1991), we required the circuit court to establish a plan for the gradual shift of custody for children found to be abused and neglected to their natural father. We held, at Syllabus Point 3, that: It is a traumatic experience for children to undergo sudden and dramatic changes in their permanent custodians. Lower courts in cases such as these should provide, whenever possible, for a gradual transition period, especially where young children are involved. Further, such gradual transition periods should be developed in a manner intended to foster the emotional adjustment of the children to this change and to maintain as much stability as possible in their lives. Explicit in both Honaker v. Burnside and James M. v. Maynard is the principle that the circuit court, and not the Department or a private agency, bears the burden of crafting a plan for the gradual transition of custody. We therefore hold that when a circuit court determines that a gradual change in permanent custodians is necessary, the circuit court may not delegate to a private institution its duty to develop and monitor any plan for the gradual transition of custody of the child(ren). [5] Accordingly, we find that the circuit court erred in delegating to Action Youth Care all responsibility regarding the reunification of George with his parents, and reverse the circuit court's orders on this point. On remand, the circuit court must establish a concrete transition plan for reunification, and must oversee the execution of that plan. [6] C.