Court Opinion

ID: 9893078
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-25 19:14:17.075686+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:52:44.834195
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                                     October 25, 2023
                                                                                      EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK
                                STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA                               SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

                              SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS                                      OF WEST VIRGINIA

In re E.S., B.R., and J.R.

No. 22-826 (Morgan County CC-33-2022-JA-1, CC-33-2022-JA-2, and CC-33-2022-JA-16)

                                 MEMORANDUM DECISION

        Petitioner Father J.G. 1 appeals the Circuit Court of Morgan County’s September 29, 2022,
order terminating his parental rights to E.S., B.R., and J.R. 2 Upon our review, we determine that
oral argument is unnecessary and that a memorandum decision affirming the circuit court’s order
is appropriate. See W. Va. R. App. P. 21.

        The proceedings below were initiated in January 2022 when the DHHR filed a petition
alleging that the father of E.S. and B.R. was physically abusive, engaged in domestic violence, and
abused drugs, among other allegations. Although there were no allegations against the children’s
mother and stepfather, petitioner herein, 3 at the time of the initial petition’s filing, the DHHR
asserted at the preliminary hearing that it could not ensure that the children’s placement with the
mother was appropriate because it was unable to contact her. Specifically, the DHHR indicated
that a worker attempted to call the mother but calls were not returned and that “[t]here’s a gate
where she’s residing with [petitioner]” that the worker could not get past. Additionally, the parties
expressed concerns over a prior abuse and neglect proceeding involving the mother and petitioner
that concerned substance abuse. Neither the mother nor petitioner appeared for the preliminary
hearing, although they were represented by counsel. During the hearing, the court was able to
contact the mother and petitioner by telephone and directed them to submit to drug screens that
day. Both petitioner and the mother repeatedly indicated that they did not have working vehicles
but would attempt to comply with the order. The record indicates that petitioner did not appear for
the screen as ordered.

       1
        Petitioner appears by counsel Jason T. Gain. The West Virginia Department of Health and
Human Resources (“DHHR”) appears by counsel Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and Assistant
Attorney General Katica Ribel. Counsel Melisha D.C. Souders appears as the children’s guardian
ad litem.
       2
       We use initials where necessary to protect the identities of those involved in this case. See
W. Va. R. App. P. 40(e).
       3
           J.R., petitioner’s biological child, was not included in the initial petition.
                                                     1
       At the continued preliminary hearing in February 2022, the court again ordered petitioner
to submit to a drug screen, which was positive for methadone, fentanyl, and marijuana. Petitioner
provided a valid prescription for methadone. The court heard testimony from a DHHR worker
about a visit to petitioner’s home that took place the day of the initial preliminary hearing, during
which the worker observed several working vehicles. The worker also saw petitioner in town later
the same day despite claims that he lacked transportation.

       The following month, the guardian filed a report indicating that personnel at the children’s
school expressed concerns about truancy, the mother’s possible drug use, and the children’s
hygiene and medical needs. In April 2022, the court held a hearing, during which petitioner
admitted that he would possibly test positive for marijuana if screened. Later that month, the
DHHR filed an amended petition adding J.R. and including allegations against petitioner.
Specifically, the DHHR alleged that petitioner abused drugs and was administered Narcan in the
children’s presence and that other individuals overdosed in the children’s presence. The petition
also noted that petitioner tested positive for fentanyl again in April 2022. Based on the foregoing,
the DHHR alleged that petitioner abused and/or neglected the children.

         At a hearing in May 2022, petitioner claimed that he did not know why he previously tested
positive for fentanyl, but asserted that the drug “can now be found in and on everything.” He also
admitted to abusing marijuana but claimed that “someone [gave] it to him at the clinic in Virginia
where it is legal.” Petitioner further contended that the two oldest children lie and embellish things
to get attention, including their disclosures about the conditions in the home. Following a second
hearing later that month, the court found that “the use of fentanyl and addiction to drugs is abuse
of all the children” and that the two older children “know way too much about drug use and are
being exposed to too much which creates a health and safety risk for the children.” The court also
disregarded petitioner’s attempts to blame his overdose and receipt of Narcan as “nothing more
than too much alcohol,” finding that at the time the mother used Narcan on petitioner, petitioner’s
“nails were purple and he was barely breathing and [the mother] felt the need to take that extra
step with Narcan.” The court also took into account that petitioner “tested positive for such high
levels of fentanyl.” Accordingly, the court concluded that petitioner abused and neglected the
children.

         Because petitioner challenges only his adjudication before this Court, it is sufficient to note
that his parental rights to all the children were terminated by order entered on September 29, 2022. 4
It is from the dispositional order that petitioner appeals.

        On appeal from a final order in an abuse and neglect proceeding, this Court reviews the
circuit court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. Syl. Pt. 1, In re
Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011). Before this Court, petitioner argues that the circuit
court erred in adjudicating him below. 5 At its essence, petitioner’s extended argument boils down

       4
        All parents’ parental rights were terminated below, and the permanency plan for the
children is adoption in their respective placements.
       5
        Petitioner raises additional arguments concerning the requirement that he submit to drug
screens and the DHHR’s entry onto his property, among other issues. While petitioner argues that
                                                   2
to a claim that “this Court has never held that illegal drug use or abuse constitutes abuse and neglect
of children.” Contrary to this assertion, we recently addressed a parent’s drug use at a time when
a child was in their custody and reiterated that

        “because the positive drug screen result constituted clear and convincing evidence
        of [the father’s] ingestion of methamphetamine, the circuit court did not err by
        adjudicating [him] as abusive and neglectful on this basis[,]” and “the circuit court
        needed only to rely on petitioner’s recent drug abuse to both adjudicate him as an
        abusing parent and later to terminate his parental rights.”

In re S.C., -- W. Va. --, --, -- S.E.2d --, --, 2023 WL 4013444, at *5 (2023) (citations omitted). We
further explained that “[o]ur position comports with the plain language of West Virginia Code §
49-1-201. The statute does not require that a parent’s conduct be directed at his child or that the
child suffer injury; it requires that a parent’s conduct threatens his child’s well-being.” Id. (citation
omitted); see also W. Va. Code § 49-1-201 (defining “abused child” and “neglected child,” in part,
as one whose health or welfare is threatened by certain conduct). As the circuit court in this matter
found, petitioner’s exposure of the children to fentanyl and abuse of that drug threatened their
welfare. Further, petitioner’s continued reliance on his own self-serving testimony cannot entitle
him to relief, as the court clearly discounted his explanation for his receipt of Narcan as being a
result of alcohol. This is a credibility determination that we refuse to disturb on appeal. See Michael
D.C. v. Wanda L.C., 201 W. Va. 381, 388, 497 S.E.2d 531, 538 (1997) (“A reviewing court cannot
assess witness credibility through a record. The trier of fact is uniquely situated to make such
determinations and this Court is not in a position to, and will not, second guess such
determinations.”). Because the evidence below was more than sufficient upon which to base
petitioner’s adjudication, we find no error. See Syl. Pt. 1, In re Joseph A., 199 W. Va. 438, 485
S.E.2d 176 (1997) (requiring the DHHR to prove “conditions existing at the time of the filing of
the petition . . . by clear and convincing [evidence]”).

      For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the decision of the circuit court, and its
September 29, 2022, order is hereby affirmed.

                                                                                              Affirmed.

ISSUED: October 25, 2023

these actions constitute violations of his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to
the United States Constitution, he also admits that his counsel “did not object to the adjudication
on” these grounds and urges the Court to apply plain error. We decline to do so, and note that
“‘[o]ur general rule is that nonjurisdictional questions . . . raised for the first time on appeal, will
not be considered.’ Shaffer v. Acme Limestone Co., Inc., 206 W.Va. 333, 349 n. 20, 524 S.E.2d
688, 704 n. 20 (1999).” Noble v. W. Va. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles, 223 W. Va. 818, 821, 679 S.E.2d
650, 653 (2009).
                                                   3
CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Justice Elizabeth D. Walker
Justice Tim Armstead
Justice John A. Hutchison
Justice William R. Wooton
Justice C. Haley Bunn

                                    4