Opinion ID: 1298495
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Inadequate Findings and Determinations

Text: As previously noted, [13] the Appellant relies on two alleged errors below: (1) insufficiency of the evidence to warrant the relief awarded against the interests of the Appellant below, and (2) the failure of the lower court to allow a post-adjudicatory improvement period. [14] The Appellant's primary contention on appeal is that the lower court erred by failing to include sufficient findings of fact in its dispositional order to support the termination decision with regard to the infant Benny and the transfer of custody with regard to the other four children. We find this issue of inadequate findings controlling in light of the limited discussion in the record of the factors leading to the lower court's decision and the court's apparent lack of attention to the various requirements of the applicable statutes and rules. [15] West Virginia Code § 49-6-5(a)(6) enumerates the standards to which courts must adhere in deciding whether parental rights may be terminated. The statute provides that the court must include specific findings within the dispositional order, as follows: Upon a finding that there is no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of neglect or abuse can be substantially corrected in the near future, and when necessary for the welfare of the child, terminate the parental, custodial or guardianship rights and/or responsibilities of the abusing parent and commit the child to the permanent sole custody of the nonabusing parent, if there be one, or, if not, to either the permanent guardianship of the department or a licensed child welfare agency. If the court shall so find, then in fixing its dispositional order, the court shall consider the following factors: (1) The child's need for continuity of care and caretakers; (2) the amount of time required for the child to be integrated into a stable and permanent home environment; and (3) other factors as the court considers necessary and proper. Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, the court shall give consideration to the wishes of a child fourteen years of age or older or otherwise of an age of discretion as determined by the court, regarding the permanent termination of parental rights. No adoption of a child shall take place until all proceedings for termination of parental rights under this article and appeals thereof are final. In determining whether or not parental rights should be terminated, the court shall consider the efforts made by the department to provide remedial and reunification services to the parent. The court order shall state: (1) That continuation in the home is not in the best interest of the child and why; (2) why reunification is not in the best interests of the child; (3) whether or not the department made reasonable efforts, with the child's health and safety being the paramount concern, to preserve the family and to prevent the placement or to eliminate the need for removing the child from the child's home and to make it possible for the child to safely return home, or that the emergency situation made such efforts unreasonable or impossible; and (4) whether or not the department made reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify the family including a description of what efforts were made or that such efforts were unreasonable due to specific circumstances. W. Va.Code § 49-6-5(a)(6) (emphasis supplied). [16] Under West Virginia Code § 49-6-5(a)(5), a trial court may commit the child or children to a suitable person who may be appointed guardian by the court where the court finds that the abusing parent or parents are presently unwilling or unable to provide adequately for the child's needs. Id. When this manner of disposition is utilized, as it was for Edward, John, David, and George in this case, the statute provides the following guidance for the court: The court order shall state: (1) That continuation in the home is contrary to the best interests of the child and why; (2) whether or not the department has made reasonable efforts, with the child's health and safety being the paramount concern, to preserve the family and to prevent or eliminate the need for; removing the child from the child's home and to make it possible for the child to safely return home; what efforts were made or that the emergency situation made such efforts unreasonable or impossible; and (3) the specific circumstances of the situation which made such efforts unreasonable if services were not offered by the department. W. Va.Code § 49-6-5(a)(5) (emphasis supplied). Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings has supplemented these statutory requirements by specifying that there shall be findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in writing or on the record and that the dispositional order shall fix the date and time of the first permanent placement review conference and may include the following information, all of which was omitted from the lower court's order in this case: (1) Terms of visitation; (2) Services to be provided to the child and family; (3) Restraining orders controlling the conduct of any party who is likely to frustrate the disposition order; (4) Actions to be taken by the parent(s) to correct the identified problems; (5) Conditions regarding the child's placement, including steps to meet the child's special needs while in placement; (6) If the child is separated from siblings, steps to unite them and/or to maintain regular contact during the separation if it is in the best interest of each child; and (7) Terms and conditions of the family case plan or the child's case plan. W. Va. R.P. Child Abuse & Neglect Proc. 36(c). The lower court's findings regarding the basis for the termination of parental rights with regard to Benny consisted of the following: It is further ORDERED that the parental rights of ... [the Appellant] with respect to infant Benny ... [J.] be permanently terminated due to this Court's finding that there is no reasonable likelihood that... [the Appellant] can eliminate the conditions which led to the neglect of the child. Similarly, the lower court failed to make specific findings in its order with regard to the disposition of Edward, John, David, and George. The court's findings with regard to those four children consisted of the following: Upon due consideration of the Department's recommendations, it is ORDERED that the full and exclusive legal and physical custody of infants John ... [F.], David... [F.], and George ... [F.] be transferred and awarded to their biological parent, David ... [F.]. [The Appellant] is granted reasonable and liberal contact, communication and visitation with those children. It is ORDERED that the full and exclusive legal and physical custody of infant Edward ... [B.] be awarded to the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources until he becomes 18 years of age. As it pertains to Benny, the dispositional order fails to state, as required by statute in termination of parental rights cases, why reunification is not in the best interests of Benny, whether the DHHR made reasonable efforts to preserve the family and to prevent the placement or to eliminate the need for removing the child from the child's home, and whether the DHHR made reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify the family including a description of what efforts were made or that such efforts were unreasonable due to specific circumstances. W. Va.Code § 49-6-5(a)(6). With regard to the other four children, the order fails to state why reunification with their mother is contrary to their best interests and whether the DHHR has made reasonable efforts to preserve the family and to prevent the need for removal. See W. Va.Code § 49-6-5(a)(5).