with children who had lived in the household for a much shorter period of time. We have been clear in pointing out that “[t]he best interests of a child are served by preserving important relationships in that child’s life.” Syl. pt. 2, State ex rel. Treadway v. McCoy, 189 W.Va. 210, 429 S.E.2d 492 (1993). This concern extends to the relationship a child in foster care has with foster parents. As we held in syllabus point eleven of In re Jonathan G., 198 W.Va. 716, 482 S.E.2d 893 (1996), “[a] child has a right to continued association with individuals with whom he has formed a close emotional bond, including foster parents, provided that a determination is made that such continued contact is in the best interests of the child.” Cf. In re Clifford K, 217 W.Va. 625, 619 S.E.2d 138 (2005) (<HOLDING>). The GAL contends that because B.G.C. is a
holding when real estate is conveyed to a child and consideration is paid by the parent the parent has the burden of proving a gift was not intended holding that psychological parent was not entitled to custody or visitation recognizing that a foster parent may attain the status of psychological parent when the relationship is not temporary in duration and exists with the consent and encouragement of a childs legal parent or guardian holding relation back permitted where a complaint misnamed a parent as guardian rather than the child by and through the parent as guardian holding the foster parent did not possess a liberty interest in her relationship with the foster child