In Israel by Israel v. West Virginia Secondary Schools Activities Comm'n, 182 W. Va. 454, 388 S.E.2d 480 (1989), the Court examined the circumstances under which technically moot issues would still require the attention of the Court. Syllabus point one provides as follows: "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." In the present case, the lower court's determinations regarding custody during the dispositional improvement period reflected inadequate consideration of the best interests of Frances and Daryl Jean and the explicit testimony of Daryl Jean regarding her preference for custody. These precise issues will have to be developed and evaluated during the lower court's determination of the permanent custody issues; we consequently find that "sufficient collateral consequences will result" from this Court's determinations in this case "so as to justify relief." (Israel, 182 W. Va. at 455, 388 S.E.2d at 481, syl. pt. 1.)