In re Michael Ray T.

525 S.E.2d 315 (1999)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

In re Michael Ray T.

West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals
525 S.E.2d 315 (1999)

Facts

A six-week-old child named Michael was hospitalized with critical injuries after enduring multiple savage attacks from rodents in his parents’ home. Fearing that Michael’s mother would go back into the rat-infested home with Michael’s sister and brother, the Department of Health and Human Services (the department) sought and received temporary custody of all three children. Michael’s sister and brother were placed in foster care in the home of Paul and Virginia Williams (plaintiffs). When Michael was released from the hospital, he was placed with the Williamses as well. After a year, the department felt it was in the children’s best interest to place them in a different foster home. Michael’s sister had had behavioral problems in the Williamses’ home, the department had needed to instruct the Williamses regarding appropriate methods of discipline, and so forth. The department moved the children to a new foster home. Paul and Virginia Williams disagreed with the children being removed from their care; thus, they moved to intervene in the children’s hearings on abuse and neglect and moved for custody. A circuit court denied both motions. The Williamses appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in not allowing them to intervene and in not approving their motion for custody. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals had previously ruled in favor of the intervention for foster parents in a child’s abuse and neglect proceedings because the foster parents had physical custody of the child. The question of whether former foster parents had standing to intervene in abuse and neglect proceedings of children they previously fostered was a case of first impression for the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Davis, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership