When Parents or Juvenile Cannot Afford to Retain Counsel. A juvenile and a juvenile's parents or legal guardians are financially unable to obtain counsel if the juvenile is unable to obtain adequate representation without substantial hardship for the juvenile or the juvenile's family. The court shall inquire to determine the financial eligibility of a juvenile for the appointment of counsel, and such determination shall be made in accordance with West Virginia Code § 29-21-16.
When Parents Can Afford to Retain Counsel. If the parents or legal guardians of a juvenile can afford to retain counsel and have not retained counsel for the juvenile, and the juvenile cannot afford to retain counsel, the court may order the parents or legal guardians to provide, by paying for, legal representation for the juvenile in the proceedings. Such order may be entered only after giving the parents or legal guardians a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The court may disregard the assets of the juvenile's parents or guardians and appoint counsel for the juvenile, as provided in paragraph (1) above, if the court concludes, as a matter of law, that the juvenile and the parents or guardians have a conflict of interest that would adversely affect the juvenile's right to effective representation of counsel, or concludes, as a matter of law, that requiring the juvenile's parents or guardians to provide legal representation for the juvenile would otherwise jeopardize the best interests of the juvenile.
W. Va. R. Juve. Proc. 5
COMMENTS
An example of such conflict of interest under subparagraph (c)(2) would be when a parent is a complaining witness in the juvenile proceeding.
Rule 8 (a) reflects the statutory requirement [W. Va. Code § 49-4-704] that a juvenile's parents or legal guardians also be named in the juvenile petition as respondents. The provision in Rule 5(d) above limiting parent or guardian participation as full and separate parties in the juvenile proceeding, for the reasons detailed in State v. Kirk N., 214 W. Va. 730, 591 S.E.2d 288 (2003), is not in conflict with the Rule 8(a) requirement.