Opinion ID: 1375148
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Need for Monitoring

Text: In Carlita B., we pronounced that [c]hild abuse and neglect cases must be recognized as being among the highest priority for the courts' attention. Unjustified procedural delays wreak havoc on a child's development, stability and security. 185 W.Va. at 615, 408 S.E.2d at 367, Syl.Pt. 1, in part. As the procedural history of this case illustrates, Jeffrey's case has unnecessarily failed to reach the point of finality for many years. This case amplifies our observations in Carlita B. that [t]he bulk of the most aggravated procedural delays ... are occasioned less by the complexities of mending broken people and relationships than by the tendency of these types of cases to fall through the cracks in the system. The long procedural delays in this and most other abuse and neglect cases considered by this Court in the last decade indicate that neither the lawyers nor the courts are doing an adequate job of assuring that childrenthe most voiceless segment of our societyaren't left to languish in a limbo-like state during a time most crucial to their development. Id. at 623, 408 S.E.2d at 375. Despite our directive in Carlita B., abuse and neglect cases still are not being accorded priority status, and many circuit courts are still doing a woefully inadequate job of monitoring and managing the progress of these cases. The instant case is one of the more aggravated examples of how courts permit these cases to flag along with no real focus or direction. Carlita B., Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, [36] and Rule 8 [37] of the Time Standards for Circuit Courts place an affirmative duty on circuit court judges to manage the progress of cases. Therefore, this Court reiterates that circuit court judges must take whatever steps are necessary to monitor abuse and neglect cases pending before them in a diligent and expeditious fashion. We are immensely troubled by the record's suggestion that Jeffrey's removal from his home was by order of a juvenile referee rather than a circuit court, even though an abuse and neglect case was pending. West Virginia Code § 49-5-8 (1995) provides for the circuit court's entry of an order directing that a child be taken into the state's custody if one of four grounds exist. [38] Given this Court's frustrated attempt to secure the complete juvenile record pertaining to Jeffrey, however, we cannot state with certainty that a circuit court order was never entered in connection with Jeffrey's removal from his home. We can only state that the documentation that has been lodged with this Court by the circuit court clerk, and represented as the complete record, contains no such order. We simply cannot fathom why it took so many years and an order by this Court to get a permanency plan developed. [39] As late as February 10, 1993, it was noted on a progress report that [a] long term goal has not been developed for Jeff at this time. [40] This child, as well as numerous others who are not currently before the Court, deserve much better. They deserve to know where and with whom they are going to live and to be secure in the knowledge that there will eventually be some continuity in their fragile lives. Consistent with our recognition in syllabus point five of James M. v. Maynard, 185 W.Va. 648, 408 S.E.2d 400 (1991), that [t]he guardian ad litem's role in abuse and neglect proceedings does not actually cease until such time as the child is placed in a permanent home[,] the obligations of the courts and the DHS similarly do not dissipate until a permanent resolution is made. Id. at 649, 408 S.E.2d at 401.