1.    “'Moot questions or abstract propositions, the decision of which would avail nothing in the determination of controverted rights of persons or of property are not properly cognizable by a court.' Syllabus Point 1, State ex rel. Lilly v. Carter, 63 W. Va. 684, 60 S.E. 873 (1908).” Syllabus point 1, State ex rel. Durkin v. Neely, 166 W. Va. 553, 276 S.E.2d 311 (1981).

    2.    “'A case is not rendered moot even though a party to the litigation has had a change in status such that he no longer has a legally cognizable interest in the litigation or the issues have lost their adversarial vitality, if such issues are capable of repetition and yet will evade review.' Syllabus point 1, State ex rel. M.C.H. v. Kinder, 173 W. Va. 387, 317 S.E.2d 150 (1984).” Syllabus point 2, State ex rel. Davis v. Vieweg, ___ W. Va. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (No. 26845 January 28, 2000).

    3.    “Three factors to be considered in deciding whether to address technically moot issues are as follows: first, the court will determine whether sufficient collateral consequences will result from determination of the questions presented so as to justify relief; second, while technically moot in the immediate context, questions of great public interest may nevertheless be addressed for the future guidance of the bar and of the public; and third, issues which may be repeatedly presented to the trial court, yet escape review at the appellate level because of their fleeting and determinate nature, may appropriately be decided.” Syllabus point 1, Israel by Israel v. West Virginia Secondary Schools Activities Commission, 182 W. Va. 454, 388 S.E.2d 480 (1989).

    4.    “A writ of prohibition will not issue to prevent a simple abuse of discretion by a trial court. It will only issue where the trial court has no jurisdiction or having such jurisdiction exceeds its legitimate powers. W. Va. Code, 53-1-1.” Syllabus point 2, State ex rel. Peacher v. Sencindiver, 160 W. Va. 314, 233 S.E.2d 425 (1977).

    5.     “In determining whether to entertain and issue the writ of prohibition for cases not involving an absence of jurisdiction but only where it is claimed that the lower tribunal exceeded its legitimate powers, this Court will examine five factors: (1) whether the party seeking the writ has no other adequate means, such as direct appeal, to obtain the desired relief; (2) whether the petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in a way that is not correctable on appeal; (3) whether the lower tribunal's order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law; (4) whether the lower tribunal's order is an oft repeated error or manifests persistent disregard for either procedural or substantive law; and (5) whether the lower tribunal's order raises new and important problems or issues of law of first impression. These factors are general guidelines that serve as a useful starting point for determining whether a discretionary writ of prohibition should issue. Although all five factors need not be satisfied, it is clear that the third factor, the existence of clear error as a matter of law, should be given substantial weight.” Syllabus point 4, State ex rel. Hoover v. Berger, 199 W. Va. 12, 483 S.E.2d 12 (1996).

    6.    “'In the law concerning custody of minor children, no rule is more firmly established than that the right of a natural parent to the custody [of] his or her infant child is paramount to that of any other person; it is a fundamental personal liberty protected and guaranteed by the Due Process Clauses of the West Virginia and United States Constitutions.' Syllabus Point 1, In Re Willis, 157 W. Va. 225, 207 S.E.2d 129 (1973).” Syllabus point 1, In Interest of Betty J.W., 179 W. Va. 605, 371 S.E.2d 326 (1988).

    7.    “'West Virginia Code, Chapter 49, Article 6, Section 2, as amended, and the Due Process Clauses of the West Virginia and United States Constitutions prohibit a court or other arm of the State from terminating the parental rights of a natural parent having legal custody of his [or her] child, without notice and the opportunity for a meaningful hearing.' Syl. pt. 2, In re Willis, 157 W. Va. 225, 207 S.E.2d 129 (1973).” Syllabus point 1, West Virginia Department of Welfare ex rel. Eyster v. Keesee, 171 W. Va. 1, 297 S.E.2d 200 (1982).

    8.    “The specific procedural protections accorded to a due process liberty or property interest generally require[] consideration of three distinct factors: first, the private interest that will be affected by state action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of the protected interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any[,] of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and third, the government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirements would entail.” Syllabus point 5, Major v. DeFrench, 169 W. Va. 241, 286 S.E.2d 688 (1982).

    9.    “Applicable standards for procedural due process, outside the criminal area, may depend upon the particular circumstances of a given case. However, there are certain fundamental principles in regard to procedural due process embodied in Article III, Section 10 of the West Virginia Constitution, which are; First, the more valuable the right sought to be deprived, the more safeguards will be interposed. Second, due process must generally be given before the deprivation occurs unless a compelling public policy dictates otherwise. Third, a temporary deprivation of rights may not require as large a measure of procedural due process protection as a permanent deprivation.” Syllabus point 2, North v. West Virginia Board of Regents, 160 W. Va. 248, 233 S.E.2d 411 (1977).

    10.    Whether an incarcerated parent may attend a dispositional hearing addressing the possible termination of his or her parental rights is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the circuit court.

    11.    In exercising its discretion to decide whether to permit an incarcerated parent to attend a dispositional hearing addressing the possible termination of his or her parental rights, regardless of the location of the institution wherein the parent is confined, the circuit court should balance the following factors: (1) the delay resulting from parental attendance; (2) the need for an early determination of the matter; (3) the elapsed time during which the proceeding has been pending before the circuit court; (4) the best interests of the child(ren) in reference to the parent's physical attendance at the termination hearing; (5) the reasonable availability of the parent's testimony through a means other than his or her attendance at the hearing; (6) the interests of the incarcerated parent in presenting his or her testimony in person rather than by alternate means; (7) the affect of the parent's presence and personal participation in the proceedings upon the probability of his or her ultimate success on the merits; (8) the cost and inconvenience of transporting a parent from his or her place of incarceration to the courtroom; (9) any potential danger or security risk which may accompany the incarcerated parent's transportation to or presence at the proceedings; (10) the inconvenience or detriment to parties or witnesses; and (11) any other relevant factors.

Davis, Justice:

    In this original proceeding in prohibition, petitioner, Jeanette H.,See footnote 1 ¹ a parent who was incarcerated by the State of West Virginia, sought to prohibit the Honorable David M. Pancake, Judge of the Circuit Court of Cabell County, from refusing to order her transportation to a dispositional hearing where her parental rights to her five minor children might be terminated. During the pendency of the proceedings in this Court, however, Jeanette H. was granted parole. Consequently, the issue raised is technically moot and the writ, therefore, is dismissed. Nevertheless, because the important question raised in the instant petition satisfies the exception to the mootness doctrine, we address the issue on its merits. In this regard, we conclude that the decision of whether to transport an incarcerated parent to a dispositional hearing is within the circuit court's discretion, and we set forth the factors to be considered by that court in exercising its discretion.

    After receiving notice of the termination proceedings, Jeanette H. presented Judge Pancake with a proposed order directing her transportation from the McDowell County Jail so that she might attend the proceedings. Judge Pancake declined to enter the order and responded by letter to Jeanette H.'s counsel stating “I know of no constitutional directive for your client to be present, and it is not our custom to transport persons under these circumstances.” Jeanette H. then filed a motion for a writ of prohibition in this Court seeking to prohibit the circuit court from refusing to enter her proposed order. We granted a rule to show cause returnable on February 22, 2000. Subsequent thereto, on April 10, 2000, Jeanette H. filed a motion to dismiss stating that she had been released on parole and, as a consequence of her release, the issue raised in her petition for writ of prohibition had been rendered moot.

        “A case is not rendered moot even though a party to the litigation has had a change in status such that he no longer has a legally cognizable interest in the litigation or the issues have lost their adversarial vitality, if such issues are capable of repetition and yet will evade review.” Syllabus point 1, State ex rel. M.C.H. v. Kinder, 173 W. Va. 387, 317 S.E.2d 150 (1984).
Syl. pt. 2, State ex rel. Davis v. Vieweg, ___ W. Va. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (No. 26845 January 28, 2000). Elaborating on this exception, we have explained:

        Three factors to be considered in deciding whether to address technically moot issues are as follows: first, the court will determine whether sufficient collateral consequences will result from determination of the questions presented so as to justify relief; second, while technically moot in the immediate context, questions of great public interest may nevertheless be addressed for the future guidance of the bar and of the public; and third, issues which may be repeatedly presented to the trial court, yet escape review at the appellate level because of their fleeting and determinate nature, may appropriately be decided.
Syl. pt. 1, Israel by Israel v. West Virginia Secondary Sch. Activities Comm'n, 182 W. Va. 454, 388 S.E.2d 480 (1989). Applying these criteria to the circumstances presently before us, we conclude that the issue raised is proper for our consideration. Therefore, after reviewing the appropriate standard for our consideration of Jeanette H.'s petition, we will address the issue on its merits.

    Jeanette H. fails to explicitly state why prohibition is appropriate in this instance. Having observed that her arguments in support of her petition raise no jurisdictional issues, however, we conclude that she claims the lower court exceeded its legitimate powers. We have previously defined the factors to be considered by this Court in determining whether prohibition should issue where it is asserted that a court has exceeded its legitimate powers:

        In determining whether to entertain and issue the writ of prohibition for cases not involving an absence of jurisdiction but only where it is claimed that the lower tribunal exceeded its legitimate powers, this Court will examine five factors: (1) whether the party seeking the writ has no other adequate means, such as direct appeal, to obtain the desired relief; (2) whether the petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in a way that is not correctable on appeal; (3) whether the lower tribunal's order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law; (4) whether the lower tribunal's order is an oft repeated error or manifests persistent disregard for either procedural or substantive law; and (5) whether the lower tribunal's order raises new and important problems or issues of law of first impression. These factors are general guidelines that serve as a useful starting point for determining whether a discretionary writ of prohibition should issue. Although all five factors need not be satisfied, it is clear that the third factor, the existence of clear error as a matter of law, should be given substantial weight.

Syl. pt. 4, State ex rel. Hoover v. Berger, 199 W. Va. 12, 483 S.E.2d 12 (1996). Finally, we have repeatedly declared that “'[m]andamus, prohibition and injunction against judges are drastic and extraordinary remedies. . . . As extraordinary remedies, they are reserved for really extraordinary causes.'” State ex rel. Lawson v. Wilkes, 202 W. Va. 34, 38, 501 S.E.2d 470, 474 (1998) (quoting State ex rel. Suriano v. Gaughan, 198 W. Va. 339, 345, 480 S.E.2d 548, 554 (1996)). See also State ex rel. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Canady, 194 W. Va. 431, 436, 460 S.E.2d 677, 682 (1995); State ex rel. Doe v. Troisi, 194 W. Va. 28, 31, 459 S.E.2d 139, 142 (1995). Because Jeanette H. has raised a new and important issue of law of first impression in this jurisdiction, we find it may properly be considered in the context of a writ of prohibition.

    Some general due process protections relating to a parent's participation in proceedings involving the welfare of his or her child(ren) have been established by the West Virginia Legislature, which has directed that “[i]n any proceeding pursuant to the provisions of this article, the party or parties having custodial or other parental rights or responsibilities to the child shall be afforded a meaningful opportunity to be heard, including the opportunity to testify and to present and cross-examine witnesses.” W. Va. Code § 49-6-2(c) (emphasis added). See also W. Va. Code § 49-6-5(a) (1998) (Repl. Vol. 1999) (“The court shall forthwith proceed to disposition giving both the petitioner and respondents an opportunity to be heard.” (emphasis added)). In addition, this Court has previously held:

        “West Virginia Code, Chapter 49, Article 6, Section 2, as amended, and the Due Process Clauses of the West Virginia and United States Constitutions prohibit a court or other arm of the State from terminating the parental rights of a natural parent having legal custody of his [or her] child, without notice and the opportunity for a meaningful hearing.” Syl. pt. 2, In re Willis, 157 W. Va. 225, 207 S.E.2d 129 (1973).

Syl. pt. 1, West Virginia Dep't of Welfare ex rel. Eyster v. Keesee, 171 W. Va. 1, 297 S.E.2d 200 (1982) (emphasis added).See footnote 7 ⁷ While the foregoing authority clearly establishes that parents are entitled to a meaningful hearing, i.e., the right to testify and to present and cross-examine witnesses, before their parental rights may be terminated, it does not resolve the specific question before us, as we have not heretofore addressed the question of whether an incarcerated parent's right to a meaningful hearing requires the parent's physical presence.See footnote 8 ⁸

    We believe that an incarcerated parent's right to a meaningful hearing is not accompanied by an automatic or absolute right to be physically present at termination proceedings. See Syl. pt. 4, In re Interest of L.V., 240 Neb. 404, 482 N.W.2d 250 (1992) (“Parental physical presence is unnecessary for a hearing to terminate parental rights, provided that the parent has been afforded procedural due process for the hearing to terminate parental rights.”); In re Baby K., 143 N.H. 201, ___, 722 A.2d 470, 472 (1998) (“[D]ue process does not absolutely require an incarcerated parent's physical presence at a parental rights termination hearing, provided the parent is otherwise afforded procedural due process at the hearing.” (citation omitted)). While there is no absolute right to be physically present at a hearing, there is the remaining question of what process is due. As we observed above, the right of a natural parent to the custody of his or her infant child implicates a fundamental liberty interest. We have previously explained that in determining the specific procedures necessary to protect a liberty interest, we should consider three general factors:

        The specific procedural protections accorded to a due process liberty or property interest generally require[] consideration of three distinct factors: first, the private interest that will be affected by state action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of the protected interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any[,] of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and third, the government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirements would entail.

Syl. pt. 5, Major v. DeFrench, 169 W. Va. 241, 286 S.E.2d 688 (1982). Accord Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-35, 96 S. Ct. 893, 903, 47 L. Ed. 2d 18, 33 (1976). We have also recognized that there are certain fundamental principles to be applied when conducting a due process analysis, and due process requirements may need to be tailored to the specific circumstances of the case under consideration:

        Applicable standards for procedural due process, outside the criminal area, may depend upon the particular circumstances of a given case. However, there are certain fundamental principles in regard to procedural due process embodied in Article III, Section 10 of the West Virginia Constitution, which are; First, the more valuable the right sought to be deprived, the more safeguards will be interposed. Second, due process must generally be given before the deprivation occurs unless a compelling public policy dictates otherwise. Third, a temporary deprivation of rights may not require as large a measure of procedural due process protection as a permanent deprivation.

Syl. pt. 2, North v. West Virginia Bd. of Regents, 160 W. Va. 248, 233 S.E.2d 411 (1977).

    Applying Major and North to the circumstances with which we are presented in this case, we are instructed that the determination of the particular due process protections to which a parent is entitled in connection with a dispositional hearing on the termination of his or her parental rights necessitates the balancing of various important factors. First, in considering the private interests that will be affected by termination proceedings, utmost priority must be given to the best interests of the child(ren) involved. In addition, regard should be had for the parent's substantial interest in retaining legal custody of his or her child(ren). See, e.g., Syl. pt. 3, In re Katie S., 198 W. Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (1996) (“Although parents have substantial rights that must be protected, the primary goal in cases involving abuse and neglect, as in all family law matters, must be the health and welfare of the children.”).See footnote 9 ⁹ Next, the risk of erroneously terminating the parent's rights due to his or her absence from the dispositional hearing, and the effectiveness of alternate methods for obtaining the parent's participation, should be weighed. Third, the State's various interests, which include, but are not necessarily limited to, the State's significant parens patriae interest in protecting the welfare of the children involved,See footnote 10 ¹⁰ the State's compelling interest in protecting its citizens from the risk that a convicted criminal might escape (especially when the parent has been convicted of a violent crime), and the fiscal and administrative burdens to the State that are associated with allowing an incarcerated parent to attend a dispositional hearing, should be contemplated. Finally, in analyzing these factors, due regard should be given to the fundamental principles set forth in Syllabus point 2 of North v. West Virginia Board of Regents, 160 W. Va. 248, 233 S.E.2d 411.

    While these considerations present a rather complex analytical framework, we note that other courts have wrestled with this issue and formulated a more manageable list of specific criteria as an aid in performing the appropriate analysis. One such court, the Supreme Court of Nebraska, has held:

        In deciding whether to allow a parent's attendance at a hearing to terminate parental rights, notwithstanding the parent's incarceration or other confinement, a court may consider the delay resulting from prospective parental attendance, the need for disposition of the proceeding within the immediate future, the elapsed time during which the proceeding has been pending before the juvenile court, the expense to the State if the State will be required to provide transportation for the parent, the inconvenience or detriment to parties or witnesses, the potential danger or security risk which may occur as a result of the parent's release from custody or confinement to attend the hearing, the reasonable availability of the parent's testimony through a means other than parental attendance at the hearing, and the best interests of the parent's child or children in reference to the parent's prospective physical attendance at the termination hearing.

Syl. pt. 6, In re Interest of L.V., 240 Neb. 404, 482 N.W.2d 250. Applying these criteria, the court in Nebraska concluded that a lower court had not abused its discretion in disallowing an incarcerated father's physical presence at termination proceedings where the father was provided notice of the hearing and the specific accusations against him, was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings, was provided with transcripts of an initial hearing, participated in a second hearing by phone, was given the opportunity to recall any previously called witnesses for cross examination and had the opportunity to present his own evidence. The court cautioned, however, that “the procedure utilized by the county court surpassed the requirements of procedural due process applicable to [this] case; hence, the procedure used . . . should not be construed as the standard to determine procedural due process for one who has a constitutional right to be heard in a proceeding.” In re Interest of L.V., 240 Neb. at ___, 482 N.W.2d at 259.

    In reaching its holdings, the Nebraska Court relied on a decision by the Supreme Court of North Dakota, in which that court had similarly stated:

        From our review of cases from the various jurisdictions and the principles of law involved, we are compelled to conclude that a convict does not have a constitutional right to personally appear in a civil suit where he has been permitted to appear through counsel and by deposition, if appropriate. Any right to appear personally would have to rest upon convincing reasons and would ultimately be left to the sound discretion of the trial court.

        In making its determination the trial court may take into account the costs and inconvenience of transporting a prisoner from his place of incarceration to the courtroom, any potential danger or security risk which the presence of a particular inmate would pose to the court, the substantiality of the matter at issue, the need for an early determination of the matter, the possibility of delaying trial until the prisoner is released, the probability of success on the merits, the integrity of the correctional system, and the interests of the inmate in presenting his testimony in person rather than by deposition.
In Interest of F.H., 283 N.W.2d 202, 209 (N.D. 1979) (citations omitted). In this case, the court found that a father's due process rights had not been violated as the father was “represented by able counsel . . . . [and] was given the opportunity and did appear by deposition.” Id.

    While these two cases from Nebraska and North Dakota involved parents who were incarcerated outside of the state wherein their parental rights were being adjudicated, as opposed to the instant case where Jeanette H. was an in-state prisoner, the courts did not limit their discussions or holdings to out-of-state prisoners.See footnote 11 ¹¹ Because due process is a flexible concept, and factors such as those outlined by the Nebraska and North Dakota courts may be applied to determine the particular due process procedures that are required given the circumstances of each individual case, we conclude that the same due process analysis is applicable regardless of where a parent is confined.See footnote 12 ¹² As one court has aptly explained, “[d]ue process is not a static concept; rather its requirements vary to assure the basic fairness of each particular action according to its circumstances.” In Interest of J.L.D., 14 Kan. App. 2d 487, ___, 794 P.2d 319, 321 (1990) (criticizing an earlier decision of the Court of Appeals of Kansas, In re S.M., 12 Kan. App. 2d 255, 738 P.2d 883 (1987), which involved an in-state prisoner and had the effect of “logically lead[ing] one to believe that a parent has an absolute right to be present at a severance hearing without regard to the particular circumstance in the individual case”).See footnote 13 ¹³

    Moreover, other jurisdictions have adopted similar rules in cases involving prisoners confined within the state. See People in Interest of C.G., 885 P.2d 355, 357 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994) (rejecting state-incarcerated father's attempt to distinguish his case from one where parent was incarcerated out-of-state, and finding no due process violation where “a respondent has an opportunity to appear through counsel and is given an opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses through deposition or otherwise”); In Interest of J.S., 470 N.W.2d 48, 52 (Iowa Ct. App. 1991) (concluding, in case involving in-state incarcerated father, “[w]here a parent receives notice of the petition and hearing, is represented by counsel, counsel is present at the termination hearing, and the parent has an opportunity to present testimony by deposition, we cannot say the parent has been deprived of fundamental fairness” (citations omitted)); In Interest of A.P., 692 A.2d 240, 243 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997) (finding state-incarcerated parent's due process rights were not violated where parent participated “[b]y way of a conference call, . . . was able to hear the testimony presented, testif[ied] in his own behalf, and confer[red] confidentially with his counsel”); Najar v. Oman, 624 S.W.2d 385, 387 (Tex. Ct. App. 1981) (holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a bench warrant that would have allowed in-state incarcerated parent to be present at termination proceedings where parent “was represented by counsel,” and where “[c]ounsel cross-examined [opposing party's] witnesses and was given the opportunity to present evidence”).

    Finally, we note that the question of whether an incarcerated parent may appear at a dispositional hearing is within the discretion of the circuit court. See Syl. pt. 3, in part, Craigo v. Marshall, 175 W. Va. 72, 331 S.E.2d 510 (1985) (“Whether a prisoner may appear at trial is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court.”). See also In re Heller, 669 A.2d 25, 32 (Del. 1995) (“'If a parent has been afforded procedural due process for a hearing to terminate parental rights, allowing a parent who is incarcerated or otherwise confined in custody of a government to attend the termination hearing is within the discretion of the trial court.'” (citation omitted)); Syl. pt. 5, In re Interest of L.V., 240 Neb. 404, 482 N.W.2d 250 (“If a parent has been afforded procedural due process for a hearing to terminate parental rights, allowing a parent who is incarcerated or otherwise confined in custody of a government to attend the termination hearing is within the discretion of the trial court, whose decision on appeal will be upheld in the absence of an abuse of discretion.”); In Interest of F.H., 283 N.W.2d 202, 209 (N.D. 1979) (“Any right to appear personally would have to rest upon convincing reasons and would ultimately be left to the sound discretion of the trial court.”); Najar v. Oman, 624 S.W.2d 385 (holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a bench warrant that would have allowed in-state incarcerated parent to be present at termination proceedings).

    After thoughtfully considering the above-discussed authority, we first hold that whether an incarcerated parent may attend a dispositional hearing addressing the possible termination of his or her parental rights is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the circuit court. Next, we hold that in exercising its discretion to decide whether to permit an incarcerated parent to attend a dispositional hearing addressing the possible termination of his or her parental rights, regardless of the location of the institution wherein the parent is confined, the circuit court should balance the following factors: (1) the delay resulting from parental attendance; (2) the need for an early determination of the matter; (3) the elapsed time during which the proceeding has been pending before the circuit court; (4) the best interests of the child(ren) in reference to the parent's physical attendance at the termination hearing; (5) the reasonable availability of the parent's testimony through a means other than his or her attendance at the hearing; (6) the interests of the incarcerated parent in presenting his or her testimony in person rather than by alternate means; (7) the affect of the parent's presence and personal participation in the proceedings upon the probability of his or her ultimate success on the merits; (8) the cost and inconvenience of transporting a parent from his or her place of incarceration to the courtroom; (9) any potential danger or security risk which may accompany the incarcerated parent's transportation to or presence at the proceedings; (10) the inconvenience or detriment to parties or witnesses; and (11) any other relevant factors.

    In the case at bar, Jeanette H. has filed a motion to dismiss stating that she has been released on parole. Consequently, a writ of prohibition to prevent the enforcement of Judge Pancake's ruling is no longer necessary, and the writ of prohibition is dismissed.