Opinion ID: 1375148
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Seven Years of a Child's Life

Text: In his concurring opinion in In re Carlita B., 185 W.Va. 613, 408 S.E.2d 365 (1991), Justice Thomas B. Miller called the majority opinion the bible not only for our circuit courts, but for all who are involved in this sensitive and difficult field. Id. at 633, 408 S.E.2d at 385 (Miller, J., concurring). The protracted procedural history of this case, as well as its substantive disregard of the rights of all the parties, could make the record below the bible for how not to handle an abuse and neglect case. Furthermore, the muddled state of the record in this matter has made this case difficult to sort out. It is especially troubling that although there are strong intimations of significant neglect and possible abuse, the only allegation of neglect or abuse ever formally alleged was truancy from kindergarten. Yet this matter has now lingered in the court system for almost seven years, without any permanent resolution for Jeffrey. On December 8, 1988, John Nanny, the director of attendance for the Ohio County schools filed a petition against the Appellant [3] pursuant to West Virginia Code §§ 49-6-1 to -11 (1992 & Supp.1994), [4] alleging neglect on the grounds that Jeffrey had missed twenty-four days of kindergarten out of a possible thirty-two days as of mid-October. [5] On December 9, 1988, a hearing was held on the neglect petition which resulted in the entry of an order directing that psychological evaluations be performed on Appellant, as well as her four children. The circuit court held a status hearing on the petition on January 27, 1989, and concluded that because Jeffrey was not emotionally ready for kindergarten, his attendance was voluntary pursuant to state law. [6] Rather than dismissing the petition as to Jeffrey, however, the court delayed its ruling pending receipt of the previously-ordered psychological evaluation. A status hearing was held on February 17, 1989, at which time the court ordered that a court summary prepared by a protective service worker for the West Virginia Department of Human Services (hereinafter referred to as DHS) [7] be filed and scheduled a hearing on June 2, 1989, for the purpose of reviewing the written psychological evaluations. [8] At the June 2, 1989, hearing, the court heard the testimony of John Nanny and the DHS protective service worker. The DHS worker asked the court to extend the improvement period [9] through November 1989 on the grounds that he had seen no indication that Jeffrey was going to start attending kindergarten in the fall. [10] He further testified that parenting classes had not been offered to Appellant as the examining psychologist had not felt that she would benefit from such classes. [11] The hearing was continued until June 30, 1989, to permit the State to call Corey Roman, the psychologist who performed the evaluations. The prosecutor chose not to call Mr. Roman at the June 30, 1989, hearing, [12] but Mr. Nanny informed the court that Jeffrey had successfully begun attending a summer school session. [13] The court opined that the improvement period is probably bearing fruit and continued the matter until September 28, 1989, with the comment that if the children's attendance is reasonable during that month then we could just dismiss this action.... The record reflects that the next action taken in connection with this case was the court's entry of an order on August 2, 1989, terminating the paternal parental rights of Wilbur White and of any person claiming to be the father of any or all of said children.... [14] A review of the record suggests that the impetus for terminating Mr. White's parental rights was a motion seeking to be relieved [15] by counsel originally appointed to represent the rights of the unknown father. [16] The record is unclear as to whether the scheduled hearing for September 28, 1989, ever took place. Two documents in the file, however, were obviously prepared in anticipation of such a hearing. First, a court summary bearing the date of September 20, 1989, by the DHS worker was ordered filed by Judge Callie Tsapis on September 25, 1989. Interestingly, that summary contains the recommendation that [t]he Court order that the educational neglect petition against Barbara Johnson be dismissed. Second, a letter which is dated September 28, 1989, from John Nanny to Judge Tsapis states that: I am pleased to share with the Court the improved attendance pattern of the ... [D.] children as of this date. I would like to see an informal, unsupervised improvement period throughout the current school year. The record suggests that this neglect case languished for almost two years before any further action was taken. The next entry in the abuse and neglect case court file pertaining to Jeffrey is a Petition for Review of Custody, which was filed by the DHS on July 2, 1991. This petition indicates that Jeffrey had been residing at the St. John's Home for Children continuously from March 16, 1990. The petition further reflects that Jeffrey is in foster care by virtue of a Court order of the Juvenile Referee through the Circuit Court of Ohio County dated March 16, 1990. While the court record is completely devoid of any order bearing the date of March 16, 1990, counsel for Appellant obtained a copy of an order dated March 19, 1990, signed by George J. Fahey as Juvenile Referee, which directed that Jeffrey be placed in the temporary custody of the West Virginia Department of Human Services, with said Department given the necessary authority to place the juvenile at St. John's Home for Children [17] .... The order states no basis for Jeffrey's placement. [18] On August 2, 1991, a hearing was held before the circuit court on the petition for review filed in connection with Jeffrey's placement for more than a year at St. John's. [19] The October 4, 1991, order reflecting this proceeding indicates that due to the necessity of appointing new counsel [20] to represent Appellant, a new hearing date was scheduled on the petition for August 9, 1991. The order further reflects that by mutual agreement of the parties the court included a directive restraining Wilbur White from being present at the home of Appellant until further order of the court. The August 9, 1991, hearing was an evidentiary proceeding which resulted in the entry of an order, entered on October 4, 1991, finding the children of Appellant to be abused in that the ... [Appellant] is unable to cope with or to supervise them or control them[.] [21] The testimony proffered at this hearing included that of Daniel Tennant, a family therapist at St. John's, who stated that Appellant required individual counseling and that he could not provide the same as his job was limited to family counseling. During the testimony of Mr. Tennant, reference was made to possible physical abuse in the nature of corporal punishment by Wilbur White. [22] This issue, however, was addressed only in passing and without any specific testimony offered to support the allegations. The only specific problem identified by protective services worker Timothy Randolph was an inability [on Appellant's part] ... to cope with the demands of the children and an apparent need of avoiding confrontations with them[.] The court granted a six-month improvement period [23] as to Jeffrey and a three-month improvement period concerning Appellant's three other children. Jeffrey's placement at St. John's was continued, whereas the three older children were permitted to remain in the custody of Appellant. The order also directs that Jeffrey cannot continue with overnight home visitation until Wilbur White... leaves the home of Appellant. The order further continues and encourages Appellant's regular visitation of Jeffrey at St. John's. During a status conference held on November 15, 1991, Mr. Nanny moved for the termination of Appellant's parental rights. Because the record does not include a transcript from this proceeding, it is unclear as to what specifically prompted the motion for termination of parental rights. [24] The only reference to Jeffrey in the order concerning the conference is a ruling that his placement at St. John's is to continue. A hearing was held on January 24, 1992, for the purpose of permitting evidence to be presented with regard to Mr. Nanny's motion for termination of parental rights. As a result of this hearing, the court entered an order dated March 6, 1992, finding that any neglect by Appellant towards her children was of a passive nature and further finding that Appellant has made progress toward improvement of her passivity. [25] The court continued Jeffrey's placement at St. John's, but ordered home visits every other weekend. The order further enjoined Mr. White from having any contact with ... [Appellant's] children and from being present in the home of the children at any time while they are there.... The court scheduled a review proceeding for May 1, 1992, which resulted in a further continuation of Jeffrey's placement at St. John's as well as the alternating weekend home visits. On May 18, 1992, a hearing was held during which the court entertained Appellees' motion to place Jeffrey in foster care. Jeffrey's guardian ad litem interjected that the counselors at St. John's believe that Jeffrey would be better off in a less restrictive environment[] as the basis for such motion. After considering testimony regarding Jeffrey's progress, the court ruled that foster care arrangements should be arranged to commence on June 8, 1992. The court stated that after sixty days of foster care, it would review the situation and consider permitting him to live at home with Appellant if the foster care situation was working. The court further ordered that Appellant's home visits with Jeffrey were to continue. At the sixty-day follow-up to Jeffrey's foster-care placement on August 6, 1992, the court directed that Jeffrey was to be returned to Appellant for a ninety-day trial visit. [26] The order directing the trial visit expressly forbade Appellant from permitting Wilbur White from having any contact with her family and directed her to contact her attorney in the event Mr. White showed up at the family's residence. The record in this case indicates that Mr. White was present in the home during several of Jeffrey's home visits prior to the ninety-day trial visit. As a result of Jeffrey missing three of the first six days of school in September 1992, the parties returned to court on September 9, 1992. After hearing testimony from John Nanny regarding his discovery of Wilbur White in an alley behind Appellant's residence when he visited the home because of Jeffrey's absence from school, the court revoked the trial home visit and ordered that Jeffrey be returned to whatever facility or foster home [the DHS] deemed to be best for said child. [27] A hearing was held on November 6, 1992, and Appellant was, for the first time, permitted to testify regarding the problems she had in trying to keep Wilbur White away from her family and home. [28] By order entered January 28, 1993, the court stopped all but supervised visitation pending proof that Wilbur White had left the area. [29] The court did order that Jeffrey be permitted to telephone Appellant when he so desires, within reasonable limitations. The court obviously was reluctant to accept that Mr. White had indeed left the area, as the order directs the family to seek group counseling and to invite Mr. White to participate in the sessions. Because Judge Tsapis was leaving the bench at the end of 1992, the case was transferred to Judge Broadwater. On February 16, 1993, Judge Broadwater held his first hearing in this case and endeavored to bring focus and direction to this case. He indicated that the case was ready for disposition, and the guardian ad litem again recommended termination of Appellant's parental rights. A dispositional hearing was then scheduled for March 4, 1993.