In In re M.B., (WV Sup. Ct., Nov. 13, 2025), the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals rejected an attempt to remove a two-year old child from his Old Order Amish foster parents who had previously adopted the child's three sisters. The petitioner was a guardian ad litem for the child. The foster parents and the state Department of Human Services opposed the attempt to remove the child. The trial court had denied the motion to remove. According to the state Supreme Court, petitioner contended that the child should be removed from his foster parents' home where he had been since shortly after his birth because the foster parents could never permanently adopt the child. The court said in part:
The petitioner offers several bases for her contention that the foster placement here cannot lead to permanent placement. First, the petitioner contends that the foster parents, being members of an Old Order Amish community, would restrict M.B.’s formal education to grades one through eight and thus deprive him of his constitutional right to a thorough and efficient education. See W. Va. Const. art. XII, § 1.2 The petitioner also argues that remaining with Amish foster parents would not be in M.B.’s best interests because he would not have regular pediatric checkups, would not be vaccinated, would not be exposed to technology, and would not learn to drive. Finally, the petitioner suggests that M.B.’s adoption into the Amish community is problematic, at best, in that the community might not welcome a biracial child....
The respondent, the West Virginia Department of Human Services, and the foster parents, argue that to the contrary, it is in M.B.’s best interests to remain in what all parties acknowledge to be a loving home with the foster parents and his three siblings, who are part of the family unit....
We begin by recognizing that this issue is unique: whereas the relevant precedents guiding our consideration all involve the right of parents to the free exercise of their religion versus the interest of a state in establishing and enforcing educational standards, this case involves the right of a child to receive an education that meets this State’s educational standards....
Here, the constitutional argument in the petitioner’s brief consists of two sentences that could most charitably be deemed conclusory.... We easily conclude that these thirty-six words are insufficient to preserve the complex, many-layered argument that the petitioner attempts to raise: whether high school is a necessary component of a “thorough and efficient” education and, if so, whether a child’s right to that education outweighs the Amish parents’ right to the free exercise of their religious beliefs, which beliefs preclude formal schooling after eight years....
The court then turned to petitioner's claims based on West Virginia's Foster Child Bill of Rights. The court said in part:
The petitioner appears to view each and every provision of the FCBR as mandatory, i.e., one strike and you’re out. However, our precedents make clear that with the exception of subsections (a)(1), (2), and (3), the provisions of the FCBR constitute an interwoven set of factors to be considered and weighed in making a determination of whether a foster child’s placement is in his or her best interests.
Justice Bunn filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:
Armed with little more than a list of ways the Amish lifestyle diverges from the mainstream, the GAL presented the circuit court with no evidence that M.B. is or will be deprived of the nurturing and care to which he is entitled as a foster child.
Justice Trump filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:
I would have addressed the circuit court’s misapplication of Yoder to make absolutely clear that neither the lower courts nor the DHS should ever subordinate the best interests of a foster child to the interests of foster parents—based on the foster parents’ “free exercise rights” or any other factor—in an abuse and neglect proceeding.
Justice Ewing filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:
I write separately to emphasize that the outcome of this appeal turns on the specific circumstances presented; namely, M.B.’s very young age, the strength of the bond he has formed with the foster parents over the course of his young life, and the foster parents’ adoption of M.B.’s three biological siblings.
Senior Status Justice Hutchinson filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:
There was no showing by anyone establishing that it was in M.B.’s best interest to remove him from his foster home....
