Opinion ID: 1298495
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Issues for Evaluation on Remand

Text: The Appellant contends that the lower court erred in the dispositional phase by denying her an improvement period. [18] The Appellant made a written motion for an improvement period prior to the dispositional hearing, and her counsel explained that her psychologist had requested a four-week period in which to assess the Appellant's progress. The motion for an improvement period was not opposed by the DHHR or the guardian ad litem. [19] In fact, the position of the DHHR, as evidenced by its family case plan, appears to have supported the motion by providing a permanency plan calling for reunification by December 2000. In State ex rel. Amy M. v. Kaufman, 196 W.Va. 251, 470 S.E.2d 205 (1996), this Court explained its position of improvements periods, as follows: The goal of an improvement period is to facilitate the reunification of families whenever that reunification is in the best interests of the children involved. Id. at 258, 470 S.E.2d at 212. We recognized that [b]oth the statute and our case law grant trial courts considerable flexibility in developing meaningful improvement periods designed to address the myriad possible problems causing abuse and neglect. Id. at 258, 470 S.E.2d at 212; see also In re Emily, 208 W.Va. 325, 540 S.E.2d 542 (2000). Additional guidance is found in syllabus point four of In re Carlita B., 185 W.Va. 613, 408 S.E.2d 365 (1991): In formulating the improvement period and family case plans, courts and social service workers should cooperate to provide a workable approach for the resolution of family problems which have prevented the child or children from receiving appropriate care from their parents. The formulation of the improvement period and family case plans should therefore be a consolidated, multi-disciplinary effort among the court system, the parents, attorneys, social service agencies, and any other helping personnel involved in assisting the family. We are puzzled by the lower court's refusal of the four-week delay in the dispositional hearing to determine if the children might profit from such an improvement period when the lower court itself delayed the entry of the dispositional order nearly that long, from June 19, 2000, to July 10, 2000. We cannot ascertain from the record before us, however, the basis for the lower court's decision not to grant the requested improvement period. Accordingly, the lower court should reexamine its determination regarding the propriety of an improvement period. The determination of whether to grant an improvement period is discretionary with the trial court and our discussion here should not be read either as favoring or disfavoring the grant of such a period in this case. We leave that to the lower court.
This Court is confident that the lower court, on remand, will also consider such supplementary issues as the following: (1) the effect of the passage of time upon the children; [20] (2) the Appellant's financial constraints; [21] (3) a gradual, but reasonably prompt, transition period for the children where alteration in custody is necessary; [22] (4) the children's rights to continued association; [23] and (5) evaluation of propriety of the termination of Charles C.'s parental rights. [24] Based on the foregoing, we hereby reverse the July 10, 2000, decision of the Circuit Court of McDowell County and remand this matter for further proceedings and evaluation consistent with this opinion. Based upon the time problems discussed earlier, the mandate herein shall issue forthwith. While this Court is cognizant that thorough evaluation on remand may consume significant time for the honorable judge to whom this matter will be assigned, this Court respectfully recommends that the lower court make all reasonable efforts to promptly conclude these proceedings, to the end that these children may enjoy a stable and certain future as early as is practicable. The urgency of the lower court's further consideration is underscored by the seriousness of these matters, as well as the fact that considerable delays, over which no party had control, were encountered in the proceedings. Reversed and Remanded With Directions.