Opinion ID: 1343594
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Failure to Develop Case Plan

Text: The circuit court's orders are replete with directives to DHHR to develop a case plan. Yet, we cannot determine from a review of the record whether such a plan was ever developed and submitted to the circuit court. DHHR is statutorily obligated by West Virginia Code § 49-6-5 (1996) to prepare the case plan immediately after a child is adjudicated as abused or neglected. [39] Since this Court's decision in Carlita B., we have repeatedly admonished lawyers and the circuit courts regarding the critical need for prompt resolution of child abuse and neglect proceedings, as well as the importance of a promptly prepared and thorough case plan geared toward meaningful improvement and reunification. We recognized in Carlita B., that 1. Child 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.... 3. Under W. Va.Code, 49-6-2(b) (1984), when an improvement period is authorized, then the court by order shall require the Department of Human Services to prepare a family case plan pursuant to W. Va.Code, 49-6D-3 (1984). Syl. Pt. 3, State ex rel. West Virginia Dept. of Human Serv. v. Cheryl M., 177 W.Va. 688, 356 S.E.2d 181 (1987). 4. 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. 5. The clear import of the statute [West Virginia Code § 49-6-2(d) ] is that matters involving the abuse and neglect of children shall take precedence over almost every other matter with which a court deals on a daily basis, and it clearly reflects the goal that such proceedings must be resolved as expeditiously as possible. 6. At the conclusion of the improvement period, the court shall review the performance of the parents in attempting to attain the goals of the improvement period and shall, in the court's discretion, determine whether the conditions of the improvement period have been satisfied and whether sufficient improvement has been made in the context of all the circumstances of the case to justify the return of the child. 185 W.Va. at 615-16, 408 S.E.2d at 367-68, Syl. Pts. 1, in part, 3-6. While this case presents an unusual scenario in that DHHR was ordered removed as the case manager and Action Youth appointed in its stead, the obligation to prepare a case plan was initially imposed on DHHR at the conclusion of the adjudicatory hearing on February 19, 1991, when the circuit court expressly ordered DHHR to develop a family case. DHHR remained as the case manager in this case until May 7, 1993, when the circuit court removed it from such role, due to DHHR's failure to comply with the court's directives regarding the preparation of a case plan for the purpose of reunification. For more than two years before its removal as case manager, DHHR was obligated to prepare a case plan. Because the circuit court makes several references to requiring DHHR to update its case plan, case plans may have been submitted to the trial court, and just not filed as a matter of record. [40] However, given the circuit court's complete dissatisfaction with DHHR regarding its failure to submit a case plan dealing with reunification, we can only conclude that the plans submitted by DHHR either did not comply with the statutory requirements of West Virginia Code § 49-6-5 and/or the court's directives, or that DHHR's execution of the case plan was determined by the circuit court to be inadequate. Even after Action Youth was assigned the role of case manager, we believe that DHHR nonetheless retained its statutory responsibility with regard to the filing of a case plan with the court under West Virginia Code § 49-6-5. To be very clear, the position of DHHR that the parental rights should have been terminated is not without merit. Jonathan was a victim of shaken baby syndrome, which has frequently been the cause of serious permanent injury, or even death, of infants. Once the court made the determination that reunification was the goal, however, DHHR should have worked diligently to accomplish that goal, or filed a petition for a writ of prohibition if it believed the record justified it. See Syl. Pt. 2, Amy M., 196 W.Va. at 253, 470 S.E.2d at 207 (holding that prohibition was available to restrain courts from granting improvement periods of greater extent and duration than permitted statutorily); see also State ex rel. West Virginia Dep't of Health and Human Resources, 185 W.Va. 318, 406 S.E.2d 749 (1991) (granting writ of prohibition to DHHR to prevent enforcement of circuit court order directing blood testing seven years after jury determination of paternity).