Opinion ID: 2783269
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: as follows:

Text: The goal should be the development of a program designed to assist the parent(s) in dealing with any problems which interfere with his ability to be an effective parent and to foster an improved relationship between parent and child with an eventual restoration of full parental rights a hoped-for result. The improvement period and family case plans must establish specific measures for the achievement of these goals, as an improvement period must be more than a mere passage of time. It is a period in which the . . . [DHHR] and the court should attempt to facilitate the parent’s success, but wherein the parent must understand that he bears a responsibility to demonstrate sufficient progress and improvement to justify return to him of the child. Id. at 625, 408 S.E.2d at 377. 18 regarding how visitation was made more difficult or, more importantly, how the Mother was purposely trying to thwart reunification with her children by obtaining treatment from one facility instead of the other. Likewise, despite statements in the DHHR’s brief that the Oxford House in Huntington “was not considered to be an appropriate place for child visitation [including overnight visitation] because it was apparently tended and staffed by recovering addicts[,]” there was no evidence in the record to support this assertion. Nor was there any evidence in the record to indicate that Storm Haven in Beckley, which was the treatment facility recommended by the DHHR, was an appropriate venue for visitation, including overnight visitation. There is, however, evidence in the appendix record that demonstrates that the Mother maintained consistent visitation with her children during her improvement period. The record further demonstrates that during visitation with her children, the Mother was very nurturing and loving with them. She gave each child equal amounts of her time, prepared their meals, and played with them. There is also a lack of evidence to support the circuit court’s determination that “the Respondent Mother has shown that she is unwilling to make the reunification of her family her first priority.” The record is devoid of evidence to support the circuit court’s finding that “the Respondent Mother has deliberately ignored reasonable directives of the DHHR and recommendations contained in the treatment plan that she signed and agreed to follow.” Neither does the record support the circuit court’s finding that the Mother “failed 19 to make any substantial progress towards reunification with her children in a timely manner.” Rather, the appendix record demonstrates that the Mother successfully completed multiple treatment programs, obtained housing and employment, enrolled in college, and participated in successful visitations with her children. Thus, based upon our review of both the record below and the appendix record, we find the Mother was making steady progress during the post-adjudicatory improvement period. The circuit court erred in its findings to the contrary, including its determination that there was “no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of neglect or abuse can be substantially corrected in the near future. . . .” See W. Va. Code § 49-6-5(a)(6). Having found that the circuit court’s findings supporting termination were clearly erroneous, see In re Tiffany Marie S., 196 W. Va. at 223, 470 S.E.2d at 177, we reverse the circuit court’s decision.21 21 West Virginia Code § 49-6-5 clearly establishes that termination of a parent’s rights is the last resort. In this case, given the great strides made by the Mother, who by all accounts was and continues to be pursuing a path toward recovery from her addiction, there were other options short of termination of rights that the circuit court should have employed. According to West Virginia Code § 49-6-5: The court shall give precedence to dispositions in the following sequence: (1) Dismiss the petition; (2) Refer the child, the abusing parent, the battered parent or other family members to a community agency for needed assistance and dismiss the petition; (3) Return the child to his or her own home under supervision of the department; (4) Order terms of supervision calculated to assist the child and any abusing parent or battered parent or parents or (continued...) 20 B. Transition Period Because termination of the Mother’s parental rights is not warranted in this case, the priority now is to reunify the Mother with her children. Our concern in this case, and every case involving children, is the welfare of the children. The two boys in this case have been in the care and custody of the DHHR and the paternal aunt for the majority of their lives. Consequently, this case calls for a gradual transition period of custody to the Mother in a manner that will cause the least amount of trauma and stress for the two children involved. As this Court first held in syllabus point three of James M. v. Maynard, 185 W. Va. 648, 408 S.E.2d 400 (1991): 21 (...continued) custodian which prescribe the manner of supervision and care of the child and which are within the ability of any parent or parents or custodian to perform; (5) Upon a finding that the abusing parent or battered parent or parents are presently unwilling or unable to provide adequately for the child’s needs, commit the child temporarily to the custody of the state department, a licensed private child welfare agency or a suitable person who may be appointed guardian by the court. . . . (6) 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 and guardianship rights and 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. The court may award sole custody of the child to a nonabusing battered parent. . . . 21 It is a traumatic experience for children to undergo sudden and dramatic changes in their permanent custodians. Lower courts in cases such as these should provide, whenever possible, for a gradual transition period, especially where young children are involved. Further, such gradual transition periods should be developed in a manner intended to foster the emotional adjustment of the children to this change and to maintain as much stability as possible in their lives. See Honaker v. Burnside, 182 W. Va. 448, 453, 388 S.E.2d 322, 326 (1989). Further, [a]s this Court stated in In re George Glen B., Jr., 207 W. Va. 346, 355, 532 S.E.2d 64, 73 (2000), “[e]xplicit in both Honaker v. Burnside and James M. v. Maynard is the principle that the circuit court, and not the Department or a private agency, bears the burden of crafting a plan for the gradual transition of custody.” Moreover, “[w]hen a circuit court determines that a gradual change in permanent custodians is necessary, the circuit court may not delegate to a private institution its duty to develop and monitor any plan for the gradual transition of custody of the child(ren).” Syllabus Point 7, In re George Glen B., Jr. Kristoper O. v. Mazzone, 227 W. Va. 184, 195, 706 S.E.2d 381, 392 (2011). Upon remand, we direct the circuit court to expeditiously set this matter for a hearing to establish a clear gradual transition period plan for reunification of the children with their Mother. Even though the length of a gradual transition period is within the circuit court’s discretion, due to the length of time that the children have been with their paternal aunt, a transition period of several months similar to the one we discussed in Honaker would be reasonable. See 182 W. Va. at 453, 388 S.E.2d at 326. As in Honaker, [f]or the transition period to be effective in accomplishing this purpose, it should provide for ever-increasing amounts of 22 visitation for the natural . . . [Mother] so as to lead to a natural progression to full custody. Such transition plan should give due consideration to both . . . [the Mother’s and the paternal aunt’s] work and home schedules and to the parameters of the . . . [children’s] daily school and home life, and should be developed in a manner intended to foster the emotional adjustment of these children to this change while not unduly disrupting the lives of the parties or the children. Id. Additionally, the circuit court must impose specific conditions upon the Mother, such as attending regular AA /NA meetings, and must continue to closely monitor those conditions beginning with bi-monthly reviews for a reasonable period of time in order to be certain that the Mother continues her path to recovery.22 On remand, the Mother also needs to demonstrate that she is able to care for her children, that her current residence is suitable for the children, that she is able to provide for the children and that she has childcare for the children when she is working and attending school. Lastly, it is in the best interests of the children for the circuit court to provide for the continued reasonable visitation between the children and their paternal aunt. The paternal aunt and these children undoubtedly have bonded and the close relationship formed as a result must be allowed to continue.23 This Court is fully aware that transitioning custody from the paternal aunt back 22 The circuit court can gradually increase the time period between reviews as it deems appropriate. 23 The DHHR should do all it can to facilitate the transition period in this case, including assisting with the visits between the Mother, the paternal aunt and these children, by aiding with transportation needs if necessary. 23 to the Mother is no small feat, both logistically and emotionally, for all involved. As we recognized in Honaker, “[n]o matter how artfully or deliberately the trial court judge draws the plan for these coming months, however, its success and indeed the chances for . . . [the children’s] future happiness and emotional security will rely heavily on the efforts . . . [of the Mother and the paternal aunt]. The work that lies ahead for both of them is not without inconvenience and sacrifice on both sides.” Id. We are optimistic that the Mother and the paternal aunt will work together for the sake of the children to show them that they are loved and to give them security and stability they need in their lives.