Court Opinion

ID: 9840896
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-20 16:14:38.791824+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:29:55.960444
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                             September 20, 2023
                                                                                EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK
                                                                               SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
                             STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA                                 OF WEST VIRGINIA
                           SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

In re O.R. and E.C.

No. 22-802 (Greenbrier County CC-13-2022-JA-18 and CC-13-2022-JA-19)

                              MEMORANDUM DECISION

        Petitioner Mother H.B. 1 appeals the Circuit Court of Greenbrier County’s September 26,
2022, order terminating her parental rights to the children, O.R. and E.C. 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.

       In March 2022, the DHHR filed a petition alleging that petitioner neglected the children
by abusing illegal substances. Specifically, the DHHR asserted that law enforcement executed a
search warrant at petitioner’s home and found drugs and drug paraphernalia, including
methamphetamine, fentanyl, syringes, spoons, a scale, methamphetamine pipes, aluminum foil
with a burnt substance, and Naloxone. Petitioner stipulated at the adjudicatory hearing in April
2022 that the children were neglected because of her failure to protect them from her substance
abuse. Therefore, the court adjudged petitioner an abusing and neglecting parent. The court then
granted petitioner a post-adjudicatory improvement period.

        The court held dispositional hearings in May 2022 and September 2022, at which time the
DHHR and guardian supported termination of petitioner’s parental rights. Petitioner was not
present at either hearing but was represented by counsel. At the May 2022 hearing, counsel for
petitioner stated she had no information regarding petitioner’s whereabouts and was unable to
achieve any recent contact. At the September 2022 hearing, counsel for petitioner advised the court
that petitioner was en route to a rehabilitation facility. The court proceeded to hear testimony of
the DHHR case manager and two social workers. The evidence indicated that, although she started
rehabilitation programs on two different occasions, petitioner checked out in five days or less each

       1
        Petitioner appears by counsel Carrie F. DeHaven. The West Virginia Department of
Health and Human Resources (“DHHR”) appears by counsel Attorney General Patrick Morrisey
and Assistant Attorney General Heather L. Olcott. Counsel Denise N. Pettijohn 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).

                                                 1
time and ultimately failed to complete a treatment program. Despite initially complying with some
improvement period terms, petitioner never completed a drug screen and violated the term
prohibiting contact with convicted felons and known drug users. Petitioner was evicted from her
home, and the DHHR could not verify that she subsequently obtained housing. One social worker
testified that petitioner did not interact with the children during the last visits for which she
appeared. Petitioner then began making excuses and not appearing for scheduled visits with the
children. The court therefore found that there was no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of
abuse and neglect could be substantially corrected in the near future; it was contrary to the best
interests of the children to continue efforts toward reunification; and taking into account all
dispositional alternatives, it was necessary for the welfare of the children to terminate petitioner’s
parental rights. It is from the final dispositional order that petitioner appeals. 3

        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).

         Petitioner argues that the circuit court erred in terminating her parental rights rather than
allowing her to complete inpatient rehabilitation when she was on the way to a rehabilitation
facility on the date of the final dispositional hearing. We have held that,

                “[t]ermination of parental rights, the most drastic remedy under the
       statutory provision covering the disposition of neglected children, [West Virginia
       Code § 49-4-604] . . . may be employed without the use of intervening less
       restrictive alternatives when it is found that there is no reasonable likelihood under
       [West Virginia Code § 49-4-604(d)] . . . that conditions of neglect or abuse can be
       substantially corrected.” Syllabus point 2, In re R.J.M., 164 W.Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d
       114 (1980).

Syl. Pt. 5, In re Kristin Y., 227 W. Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (2011).

         Here, there was sufficient evidence for the court to conclude that there was no reasonable
likelihood that the conditions of neglect or abuse could be substantially corrected. Although
petitioner was purportedly on her way to a rehabilitation facility at the time of disposition, she had
already unsuccessfully attempted to complete rehabilitation treatments twice. We have held that
“courts are not required to exhaust every speculative possibility of parental improvement . . . . Syl.
Pt. 1, in part, In re R.J.M., 164 W.Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (1980).” Cecil T., 228 W. Va. at 91,
717 S.E.2d at 875, syl. pt. 4, in part. It is clear from the record that petitioner was given ample
chances to comply with the terms and conditions of the improvement period prior to disposition.
She not only failed to complete a treatment program, but blatantly violated certain terms of her
improvement period such as not once submitting to a drug screen.

       3
        The child O.R. remained in the custody of her non-offending father, S.R, throughout the
proceeding. The father of the child E.C. is K.C., who was also named as a respondent but
successfully completed an improvement period. The permanency plan for both children is
placement in the custody of their respective fathers.
                                                  2
       We have explained that,

               “[i]n making the final disposition in a child abuse and neglect proceeding,
       the level of a parent’s compliance with the terms and conditions of an improvement
       period is just one factor to be considered. The controlling standard that governs any
       dispositional decision remains the best interests of the child.”

Syl. Pt. 4, In re B.H., 233 W. Va. 57, 754 S.E.2d 743 (2014). While the court found that petitioner’s
failure to participate in services and comply with conditions of her improvement period
demonstrated no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse and neglect could be
substantially corrected, the court ultimately and properly concluded that it would be contrary to
the best interests of the children to continue efforts toward reunification based on petitioner’s
actions or lack thereof. Further, we have pointed out that,

       the level of interest demonstrated by a parent in visiting his or her children while
       they are out of the parent’s custody is a significant factor in determining the parent’s
       potential to improve sufficiently and achieve minimum standards to parent the
       child.

In re Katie S., 198 W. Va. 79, 90 n.14, 479 S.E.2d 589, 600 n.14 (1996) (citations omitted). The
evidence illustrated petitioner’s lack of interest when she failed to interact with the children during
visits, made up excuses to avoid visits, and eventually did not appear for scheduled visits.
Therefore, termination is indisputably in the best interests of the children.

        Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the decision of the circuit court,
and its order of September 26, 2022, is hereby affirmed.

                                                                                            Affirmed.

ISSUED: September 20, 2023

CONCURRED IN BY:

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

                                                  3