Opinion ID: 1418598
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Removal of the Juvenile From His Parent's Custody and Home

Text: The proceedings at issue in the instant case alleged that the juvenile was a status offenderi.e., a child whose complained-of conduct would not be a crime if the conduct was engaged in by an adult. [4] The circuit court's post-adjudication order referring the juvenile to the DHHR was dictated by the provisions of W.Va.Code, 49-5-11 [1998], which states in part: (d) If the allegations in a petition alleging that the juvenile is a status offender are admitted or sustained by clear and convincing proof, the court shall refer the juvenile to the department of health and human resources for services, pursuant to section eleven-a of this article and order the department to report back to the court with regard to the juvenile's progress at least every ninety days or until the court, upon motion or sua sponte, orders further disposition under section eleven-a of this article or dismisses the case from its docket. (e) If the allegations in a petition are not sustained by proof as provided in subsections (c) and (d) of this section, the petition shall be dismissed and the juvenile shall be discharged if he or she is in custody. (f) Findings of fact and conclusions of law addressed to all allegations in the petition shall be stated on the record or reduced to writing and filed with the record or incorporated into the order of the court. The referral from the circuit court pursuant to W.Va.Code, 49-5-11(d) [1998] triggers a duty by the DHHR to provide services to the juvenile, under the mandate of W.Va. Code, 49-5-11a [1998], which states in part: (a) Services provided by the department for juveniles adjudicated as status offenders shall be consistent with the provisions of article five-b of this chapter [49-5B-1] and shall be designed to develop skills and supports within families and to resolve problems related to the juveniles or conflicts within their families. Services may include, but are not limited to, referral of juveniles and parents, guardians or custodians and other family members to services for psychiatric or other medical care, or psychological, welfare, legal, educational or other social services, as appropriate to the needs of the juvenile and his or her family. (Emphasis added.) (b) If necessary, the department may petition the circuit court: (1) For a valid court order, as defined in section four, article one of this chapter, to enforce compliance with a service plan or to restrain actions that interfere with or defeat a service plan; or (2) For a valid court order to place a juvenile out of home in a nonsecure or staff-secure setting, and/or to place a juvenile in custody of the department. The DHHR's petition for custody in the instant case is grounded in the language in the foregoing-quoted statute authorizing the DHHR to [i]f necessary ... petition the circuit court [to] ... place a [referred status offender] out of home in a nonsecure or staff-secure setting, and/or to place a juvenile in custody of the department. Id. The appellant suggests that as a matter of law and in all cases, in order for the DHHR to seek under W.Va.Code, 49-5-11a(b)(2) [1998] to have custody of an adjudicated status offender transferred from the child's parent to the DHHRas a quasi-jurisdictional and necessary precursor for such a request, the DHHR must first have provided services to the juvenile and his or her family while the juvenile is in the parent's home and custody, and the DHHR must show that these in-home services have been ineffective, thus rendering a further court order necessary. However, such a reading of W.Va.Code, 49-5-11a [1998] is not compelled by the language of the statute, nor would such a reading comport with common sense. Certainly there could be a severe case in which the provision of services to a status offender necessarily requires, in the first instance, an order placing a juvenile out of his or her parents' custody or home in the first instancesuch as when a juvenile's parent is gravely ill, for example. Having said this, however, we must emphasize that the entire statutory scheme for status offenders contemplates that removal from the home and/or transfer of custody from a parent be undertaken only when necessary and upon clear and convincing proof that no less restrictive alternative is feasible. The removal of a juvenile status offender or delinquent from his parent's custody is authorized only when the child's welfare or the safety and protection of the public cannot be adequately safeguarded without removal .... W.Va.Code, 49-1-1(a)(12)(b) [1999]. [5] While the 1997 revisions to the child welfare statutes grant courts broader discretion in determining the precise placement for status offenders that will meet the best interests of the juvenile and the community [,] State ex rel. Ohl v. Egnor, 201 W.Va. at 785, n. 13, 500 S.E.2d at 898, n. 13 (1997), the requirement of selecting the least restrictive appropriate alternative remains. Id. [6] Based on the foregoing, we hold that the prior actual provision of services by the State Department of Health and Human Resources to a status offender is not in all cases a jurisdictional prerequisite for the filing of a petition seeking an order transferring custody of the status offender to the Department and/or out-of-home placement under W.Va. Code, 49-5-11a(b)(2) [1998]; however, such a petition may only be granted upon a showing by clear and convincing evidence that such a custody or placement order is actually necessary; that the effective provision of services cannot occur absent such an order; and that all reasonable efforts have been made to provide appropriate services without an out-of-home placement and/or custody transfer; additionally, orders granting such placement or transfer must be based on specific findings and conclusions by the court with respect to the grounds for and necessity of the order. Applying the foregoing principles to the facts of the instant case, we first note that the DHHR was required upon receipt of the initial referral from the court to establish an individualized plan of rehabilitation for the juvenile. W.Va.Code, 49-5B-4(b) [1999]. No evidence was adduced regarding the establishment of such a plan in the instant case. Moreover, while the DHHR alleged in its post-adjudication petition for custody and transfer that services were provided to the Juvenile by the Children's Home Society of West Virginia[,] and that [t]he juvenile will not remain in a safe residence long enough for services to be provided nor is there a community service available that can supervise the Juvenile to prevent him from skipping school, being incorrigible, and running away... [,] in fact none of these allegations were addressed, much less proven, at the March 25, 2002 hearing. [7] We recognize that the circuit court in the instant case, faced with an agency that had apparently not even begun to do its assigned job, decided to bring matters to a head and take the juvenile in charge. However, the evidence at the March 25, 2002 hearing did not legally establish the necessity for the protection of the juvenile or the publicof transferring legal custody of the juvenile to the DHHR and removing him from his home. For this reason, the circuit court's order removing the juvenile from his parent's custody and transferring it to the DHHR and placing him out of his home must be reversed. B.