Opinion ID: 6335204
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Abuse and Neglect Proceedings

Text: M.A. and D.A. waived their preliminary hearings on June 13, 2019. The circuit court then scheduled an adjudicatory hearing for July 24, 2019, but such hearing was continued multiple times. Ultimately, D.A. stipulated to the allegations raised in the 2019 petition, admitting that she engaged in the abuse of controlled substances to the extent that her parenting was impaired and she could not provide for A.A. Thereafter, the circuit court adjudicated D.A. an abusive and neglectful parent, and granted her a postadjudicatory improvement period by order dated October 2, 2019. D.A. failed to participate in the terms of that improvement period insofar as she failed to submit to 6 random drug screening, so the circuit court proceeded to disposition with regard to her parental rights on November 9, 2019. The circuit court determined there was no reasonable likelihood the conditions of neglect or abuse could be substantially corrected in the near future as a result of D.A.’s unwillingness to comply with the terms of her improvement period, and thus terminated her parental rights by order dated December 10, 2019. Throughout the proceedings, M.A. remained incarcerated. His adjudicatory hearing was held on December 16, 2019, and the circuit court entered an order adjudicating him an abusing and neglectful parent on February 13, 2020. The record does not contain a motion on the part of M.A. for a post-adjudicatory improvement period, nor does it appear the circuit court granted him one. Instead, the circuit court set the matter for disposition, and such disposition was repeatedly continued due to M.A.’s unavailability resulting from his multiple prison transfers. The dispositional hearing finally occurred on February 24, 2020, but the circuit court left the record open until March 5, 2020, so M.A. could file with the court his federal sentencing orders. The circuit court ultimately determined that M.A. was unable to correct the conditions of abuse and neglect in the foreseeable future, considering not only his incarceration, but also his inability to participate in an improvement period, his lengthy history of criminal behavior, and illegal drug use. As such, the circuit court terminated M.A.’s parental rights by order dated April 28, 2020. 7 D. Petitioner’s Intervention and Motion to Transfer Physical Custody On April 13, 2020, approximately two weeks before entry of the order terminating M.A.’s parental rights, Petitioner filed a motion to intervene in the proceedings. In her motion, she alleged that she was A.A.’s paternal grandmother and that it would be in the best interest of A.A. to grant the motion. Upon receiving no objection, the circuit court granted the motion on July 15, 2020. In the same order, the circuit court directed the DHHR to conduct a proper home study of Petitioner’s residence to determine whether she would be a suitable placement for A.A. 7 On August 5, 2020, before the home study took place, Petitioner filed a “Motion for Transfer of Physical Custody,” seeking the transfer of A.A. from the Respondent Foster Parents to her. In the motion, Petitioner contended that A.A. “spent a majority of her time living with [Petitioner]” for the two years preceding the initiation of the 2019 abuse and neglect proceedings. Notably, Petitioner also contended that she sought placement of A.A., but that the DHHR “took no steps to do a home study or consider her as a placement even after termination of the parental rights.” She further alleged that she had engaged in video visits with A.A. during the pendency of the case. Finally, she stated that she made arrangements to relocate to West Virginia from Georgia. It does not appear Petitioner resided in West Virginia at the time of the order; 7 however, she did relocate to West Virginia from Georgia sometime in July or August 2020. 8 Thereafter, the circuit court set a hearing on Petitioner’s motion for transfer of custody, stylized as a permanency hearing, for October 21, 2020. Respondent Foster Parents moved to intervene on October 5, 2020, and such motion was granted. A home study was conducted on Petitioner’s home in Moundsville, West Virginia, on September 24, 2020, and flagged no safety concerns with the home. At the October 21, 2020, hearing, the circuit court heard testimony from several witnesses, including Petitioner and the Respondent Foster Parents. While we need not recount all of the testimony presented, certain developments are pertinent to our analysis in this matter. Specifically, with regard to A.A.’s residences, Petitioner testified that A.A. originally moved to New Martinsville, West Virginia, with her biological parents shortly after her birth in 2015. She then testified that the child resided in New Jersey with her and M.A. for some time in the spring of 2018 before and after the 2018 abuse and neglect proceedings in Wetzel County. The Respondent Foster Mother testified that A.A. resided in her home for approximately two weeks in mid-August 2018. Petitioner confirmed this testimony and noted that, upon leaving the Respondent Foster Parents’ home, A.A. stayed with Petitioner in Pennsylvania “until January [2019].” 8 Petitioner then testified she relocated from Pennsylvania to South Carolina in February 2019, and A.A. 8 See supra note 4. 9 resided with her and M.A. in that home until M.A. took the child to West Virginia in June 2019. Petitioner further testified that, during the pendency of the proceedings, she moved from South Carolina to Georgia, and ultimately to West Virginia. Notably, upon moving to West Virginia, Petitioner did not move to a community close to A.A. in Pleasants County, but instead moved to Moundsville, Marshall County, West Virginia, fifteen to thirty minutes from M.A.’s current address. 9 While Petitioner initially testified she wanted to relocate nearer to A.A., she also needed to move quickly to ensure the home study could be completed, so she had to take what housing was available. However, when pressed further about this by the circuit court, Petitioner conceded that she was unable to find an apartment in Pleasants County that would allow her to have pets, and that her animals were “part of [her] family[.]” Petitioner further responded in the affirmative when the court asked her, “You chose your dog and cat over your granddaughter, correct?” Various witnesses also testified as to A.A.’s developmental delays and her improvements while in the Respondent Foster Parents’ home. When A.A. was first removed from the hotel room in St. Marys, she was nonverbal and unable to use eating utensils, bathe or dress herself, or sit in a chair. Since the time of her placement with the Respondent Foster Parents, A.A. is now partially verbal, understands sign language, and M.A. was released from incarceration on September 11, 2020, at which time he 9 moved to Triadelphia, Ohio County, West Virginia. 10 can eat and bathe independently. Further, she has been enrolled in a public school where she has an aide who accompanies her during the day. Petitioner acknowledged these delays but debated their severity. Specifically, she asserted that A.A. would eat from a fork when the same was held by Petitioner. She testified that when the child was in the home with her, she attempted to seek enrollment for A.A. in a specialized program for autistic children. She noted that she had taken A.A. to a doctor in South Carolina to seek a recommendation for that program. Moreover, Petitioner presented conflicting testimony about the amount and consistency of care she provided to A.A. while the child was in her home. Notably, Petitioner acknowledged that M.A. would take the child and leave sporadically, but that she would try to persuade him to leave the child with her. It is unclear how frequently this occurred or how successful Petitioner was in persuading M.A. to leave the child in her care. Additionally, the court heard testimony from one witness, K.S., that she witnessed Petitioner providing M.A. with an illegal substance. 10 Finally, the guardian ad litem testified to his belief that it would be in the child’s best interest to remain in her current placement with the Respondent Foster Parents because such placement had proven 10 The circuit court found that by engaging in this conduct, Petitioner facilitated M.A.’s abuse of controlled substances. 11 beneficial to her development and afforded her the structure needed to ensure future improvement. At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court indicated that it would deny Petitioner’s motion to transfer custody—and, in fact, did so by order dated December 3, 2020. In reaching this conclusion, the circuit court noted several instances in which Petitioner had prioritized the interests of others over those of A.A., including: (1) declining placement of the child at the time of removal so her son, a paroled felon, could continue to reside in her home; (2) transporting A.A. to New Jersey after the 2018 abuse and neglect proceedings; (3) relocating closer to M.A., rather than A.A., when she moved to West Virginia; and (4) selecting an apartment that permitted her to have pets rather than moving closer to A.A. The circuit court also expressed its concerns that Petitioner would seek to “end run” around the proceedings and afford M.A. access to A.A. if granted custody, despite M.A.’s parental rights having been terminated. 11 The circuit court further noted that Petitioner did not attempt to assert her custodial rights until it was clear M.A.’s parental 11 This finding, while supported by other evidence in the record, stems at least partially from the guardian ad litem having expressed concerns to the circuit court that Petitioner would merely take custody of A.A. and hand the child over to the father. The guardian founded his concerns not just on the case at bar, but circumstances arising from the 2018 petition in Wetzel County where he also served as the guardian ad litem. At the conclusion of the 2018 case, Petitioner transported A.A. from West Virginia to M.A. in New Jersey. As discussed further infra, while we do not have a complete record for the 2018 petition, we cannot definitively say that Petitioner’s conduct at the conclusion of those proceedings was improper as M.A.’s parental rights remained intact at the conclusion of the proceedings. 12 rights would be terminated. Finally, the circuit court addressed the developmental delays A.A. suffered while allegedly in Petitioner’s care and noted that such delays were markedly improving while A.A. was in the Respondent Foster Parents’ care. Upon examining the foregoing testimony and comparing the two placement options, the circuit court ultimately found that it was in A.A.’s best interest to remain in her present placement with the Respondent Foster Parents and, thus, denied Petitioner’s motion to transfer custody. Petitioner now appeals that order.