Court Opinion

ID: 9948699
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-07 18:17:16.90152+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:45.905806
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                                   March 6, 2024
                                                                                   C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK
                                                                                 SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
                             STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA                                   OF WEST VIRGINIA
                           SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

In re J.C.-1, J.C.-2, and J.C.-3

No. 23-93 (Kanawha County 22-JA-143, 22-JA-144, and 22-JA-145)

                               MEMORANDUM DECISION

        Petitioner Mother A.J.1 appeals the Circuit Court of Kanawha County’s January 20, 2023,
order terminating her parental rights to J.C.-1, J.C.-2, and J.C.-3.,2 arguing that the court erred in
considering certain evidence at adjudication and in denying her motion for an improvement period.
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 DHS filed a petition alleging that petitioner had a history of Child
Protective Services (“CPS”) involvement and removal of the children from the home. The petition
further alleged that two of the children had issues with truancy and, when they did appear for
school, were “wearing exceptionally soiled clothing” and were very dirty. One child was noted to
have “underwear soiled with feces.” One child also had cuts to his feet, which the children claimed
the father intentionally inflicted because the child “wasn’t listening.” The DHS further alleged that
petitioner subjected the children to deplorable conditions in the home, including “rats going in and
out of the house” that chewed one child’s backpack. Additionally, the petition alleged that
petitioner failed to properly feed the children, who “often [went] to bed hungry.” When CPS
investigated, petitioner denied the allegations but provided no further explanation. She also refused

       1
         Petitioner appears by counsel Sandra K. Bullman. The West Virginia Department of
Human Services appears by counsel Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and Assistant Attorney
General Jason R. Trautwein. Counsel Joseph H. Spano, Jr. appears as the children’s guardian ad
litem (“guardian”).

       Additionally, pursuant to West Virginia Code § 5F-2-1a, the agency formerly known as
the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources was terminated. It is now three
separate agencies—the Department of Health Facilities, the Department of Health, and the
Department of Human Services. See W. Va. Code § 5F-1-2. For purposes of abuse and neglect
appeals, the agency is now the Department of Human Services (“DHS”).
       2
         We use initials where necessary to protect the identities of those involved in this case. See
W. Va. R. App. P. 40(e). Additionally, because the children share the same initials, we use numbers
to differentiate them.
                                                  1
to permit CPS to inspect the home, resulting in CPS seeking emergency custody of the children
instead of attempting to implement services to address the issues. Accordingly, the DHS alleged
that petitioner abused and neglected the children.

        At a preliminary hearing in April 2022, a CPS worker testified that she spoke to two of the
children at their school and they disclosed extensive abuse and neglect in the home. Specifically,
the children explained that “their home was very dirty, that sometimes they weren’t able to have
dinner,” that the father would physically abuse them, and “that there were rats in the home that
would crawl on them while they slept.” The children also explained that they often had no clean
clothes because no one in the home did laundry, resulting in school staff providing the children
with clean clothing and helping them clean themselves in the school bathroom. The worker also
described her interactions with petitioner during the investigation, during which petitioner called
the children liars and demanded that the worker leave the property. Petitioner refused to permit the
worker into the home, despite the worker informing her that the DHS would have to take
emergency custody of the children if petitioner did not comply, to which petitioner responded, “go
ahead.” According to the worker, the father admitted the home was dirty and had a rat infestation.
The worker also testified that this was third petition filed against the parents and that the DHS had
previously provided in-home services to address the “deplorable home conditions.”

        At no point during the DHS’s direct examination of the CPS worker did petitioner object
on grounds of hearsay or any other basis. However, when the guardian cross-examined the witness
as to her discussions with the children’s school counselor, petitioner objected, and the following
exchange occurred:

               [PETITIONER’S COUNSEL]: Your Honor, this clearly is hearsay. I
       understand we’re here at a preliminary hearing, but lots of times the State will ask
       to use this testimony for adjudication. So I would object to this testimony being
       used for adjudicatory purposes.

            THE COURT: All right. I’ll preserve that and if you’ll make sure I
       remember that . . . .

The court then permitted the witness to continue testifying. Petitioner declined the opportunity to
cross-examine this witness. Petitioner then testified on her own behalf and denied many of the
allegations. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court ordered petitioner to participate in parenting
and adult life skills classes and permitted her to have supervised visitation with the children
contingent upon three clean drug screens. The court also ordered the children to undergo Child
Advocacy Center (“CAC”) interviews.

       After a series of continuances, the parties appeared for an adjudicatory hearing in October
2022. Petitioner failed to appear but was represented by counsel. The DHS first presented
testimony from a CPS worker who explained that petitioner failed to appear for her psychological
evaluation and had not submitted to any drug screens. According to the worker, petitioner
“completely ceased to participate in anything.” In fact, the DHS worker indicated that petitioner
had not had contact with the DHS or other service providers and the DHS was “not entirely certain
where [petitioner was] at this moment.” The circuit court also noted receipt of the children’s CAC

                                                  2
interviews, in which “the children gave evidence that they had been neglected.” During the
hearing, the guardian moved to have the court consider the CPS worker’s testimony from the
preliminary hearing for purposes of adjudication. Petitioner’s counsel reminded the court that she
preserved an objection to the CPS worker’s testimony being considered at adjudication. The court,
however, overruled petitioner’s objection, noting that the testimony from the preliminary hearing
was subject to cross-examination. Based on the evidence, the court concluded that petitioner
abused and neglected the children. The court additionally warned that petitioner should avail
herself of services “sooner rather than later.” Following the hearing, petitioner filed a motion for
a post-adjudicatory improvement period.

        In January 2023, the parties appeared for a dispositional hearing. Petitioner again failed to
appear but was represented by counsel. Petitioner also failed to attend the multidisciplinary team
meeting preceding the hearing. Based on the evidence, the court found that petitioner made no
efforts to remedy the conditions of abuse and neglect, as she initially complied with minimal
services but later failed to follow direct orders to submit to drug screens, did not attend her parental
fitness psychological evaluation, and failed to visit with the children during the proceedings. As
such, the court concluded that there was no reasonable likelihood petitioner could substantially
correct the conditions of abuse and neglect in the near future and that the children’s best interests
required termination of her rights. Accordingly, the court terminated petitioner’s parental rights
without granting her an improvement period.3 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 first argues that the
circuit court erred in considering the CPS worker’s preliminary hearing testimony for purposes of
adjudication, and further bases additional assignments of error concerning adjudication and
disposition upon this alleged error. We find, however, that it is unnecessary to address this
argument because the evidence in support of adjudication is sufficient absent the testimony of
which petitioner complains. As set forth above, the circuit court received the children’s CAC
interviews and specifically found that the children corroborated that they were subjected to
neglectful conduct. On appeal, petitioner does not challenge the court’s reliance on these
interviews, although she generally argues that the DHS failed to satisfy the applicable burden of
proof. We find, however, that petitioner cannot establish error, given the circuit court’s finding
that the children’s CAC interviews established their neglect. See Syl. Pt. 1, In re Joseph A., 199
W. Va. 438, 485 S.E.2d 176 (1997) (requiring the DHS “to prove ‘conditions existing at the time
of the filing of the petition . . . by clear and convincing [evidence]’” but clarifying that “[t]he
statute [West Virginia Code § 49-4-601(i)] . . . does not specify any particular manner or mode of
testimony or evidence by which the [DHS] is obligated to meet this burden” (citations omitted)).
Further, because petitioner predicates her arguments concerning both her adjudication and the

       3
        The father’s parental rights were also terminated. The permanency plan for J.C.-2 is
adoption in the current foster home. According to respondents, concerns over the current foster
home for J.C.-1 and J.C.-3 have required the DHS to attempt to locate a new foster home for these
children.
                                                   3
termination of her parental rights entirely upon the introduction of this preliminary hearing
evidence, we find that she is not entitled to relief in regard to either ruling.

        Finally, petitioner argues that the circuit court erred in denying her motion for an
improvement period. However, petitioner admits that, because she failed to appear at either the
adjudicatory or dispositional hearings, “no evidence of compliance could be presented” in support
of the motion. Indeed, West Virginia Code § 49-4-610(2)(B) requires that a parent seeking an
improvement period must establish that he or she is likely to fully comply with the same. Not only
does petitioner acknowledge that she failed to satisfy this burden, but the record also
overwhelmingly supports denial of an improvement period. Petitioner failed to attend hearings in
this matter and also failed to participate in services throughout the vast majority of the proceedings
despite the circuit court’s explicit warning at adjudication that her compliance was of the utmost
importance. We have explained that circuit courts have discretion to deny an improvement period
when no improvement is likely. In re Tonjia M., 212 W. Va. 443, 448, 573 S.E.2d 354, 359 (2002).
Because petitioner almost totally absented herself from services and hearings below, we find no
error in the circuit court proceeding to termination of her parental rights without affording her an
improvement period.

       For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the decision of the circuit court, and its
January 20, 2023, order is hereby affirmed.

                                                                                           Affirmed.

ISSUED: March 6, 2024

CONCURRED IN BY:

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

                                                  4