Court Opinion

ID: 9369094
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-07 20:12:20.406253+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:12.785415
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                              February 7, 2023
                             STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA                            EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK

                           SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS                            SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                   OF WEST VIRGINIA

In re H.A.

No. 22-0385 (Ohio County 21-JA-104)

                              MEMORANDUM DECISION

       Petitioner Father J.C. 1 appeals the Circuit Court of Ohio County’s April 19, 2022, order
terminating his parental rights to H.A. 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 August of 2021, the DHHR filed an amended child abuse and neglect petition that
alleged the mother of H.A. and her boyfriend recently moved to West Virginia from
Pennsylvania where that state’s Children and Youth Services division was investigating them for
child abuse and neglect resulting from their domestic violence and substance abuse. The DHHR
alleged that petitioner “had little to no involvement” with H.A., did not support the child
financially or emotionally, and had abandoned H.A. The DHHR determined that petitioner pled
guilty to three counts of burglary in 2016, received an indeterminate one-to-fifteen-year sentence
in the penitentiary, and was granted parole in 2018. However, petitioner violated his parole and
was reincarcerated in August of 2021 and remained incarcerated throughout these proceedings.
In October of 2021, petitioner stipulated to the allegations in the petition, and the circuit court
adjudicated him as an abusing parent.

       In March of 2022, the circuit court held the final dispositional hearing and heard
testimony from petitioner, the mother, and a DHHR worker regarding petitioner’s previously
filed motion for a post-adjudicatory improvement period and the DHHR’s motion to terminate

       1
        Petitioner appears by counsel John M. Jurco. The West Virginia Department of Health
and Human Resources (“DHHR”) appears by counsel Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and
Assistant Attorney General Katica Ribel. Joseph J. Moses appears as the child’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
petitioner’s parental rights. Petitioner admitted that he abused methamphetamine and
prescription drugs while on parole in 2019 and that he had introduced the mother to
methamphetamine while she was caring for her children, including H.A. Due to his illicit and
prescription drug abuse, petitioner was sanctioned multiple times for parole violations. The
evidence showed that petitioner had some contact with the mother and H.A. prior to a sanction in
2019 and had limited contact with the mother thereafter. Although it is unclear when petitioner
was released back on parole, he admitted that he was sanctioned and ordered to participate in a
twelve-month substance abuse treatment program, which he failed to complete due to a violation
of the terms of that program. The evidence further showed petitioner’s parole had been revoked
in August of 2021, and he was “recently denied” parole as of the March 2022 hearing. Petitioner
testified that he would discharge his sentence in November 2024. The mother testified that
petitioner did not financially support H.A.; did not provide any daily care for H.A., such as
feeding or changing the child when he was an infant; and did not emotionally support H.A.

        Ultimately, the circuit court found that petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was likely
to fully participate in an improvement period and denied his motion. The court found that
petitioner habitually abused controlled substances to the extent that his parenting skills had been
seriously impaired. It further found that petitioner’s continued use of controlled substances led to
his parole sanctions and incarcerations, which had prevented him from parenting H.A. The court
concluded that there was no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of neglect and abuse could
be substantially corrected in the near future and that it was necessary for the child’s welfare to
terminate petitioner’s parental rights. Accordingly, the circuit court terminated petitioner’s
parental rights to H.A. by its April 19, 2022, order. Petitioner now appeals that order. 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 his parental rights because the DHHR failed to prove that there was no reasonable
likelihood that the conditions of abuse and neglect could be substantially corrected. In
petitioner’s view, “it was just a matter of time” before he was released from incarceration and the
conditions of abuse and neglect were remedied. Petitioner ignores that the circuit court’s
termination of his parental rights was based on his continued incarceration as well as his habitual
substance abuse that seriously impaired his parenting of H.A. 4 See W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(c)(6)
(authorizing the termination of parental rights upon said findings); see also W. Va. Code § 49-4-
604(d)(1) (providing that there is no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of neglect and

       3
         According to the parties, the mother is participating in an improvement period and
retains her parental rights. The permanency plan for H.A. is reunification with the mother with a
concurrent plan of adoption in his current foster placement.
       4
         This Court discussed factors to be considered when incarceration is the sole issue raised
at disposition in syllabus point 3 of In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011). Given
that the circuit court considered more than petitioner’s incarceration at disposition, Cecil T. is
inapplicable to the facts of this case.

                                                  2
abuse can be substantially corrected when the parent has “habitually abused . . . controlled
substances or drugs, to the extent that proper parenting skills have been seriously impaired” and
the person has not followed through with proper treatment). The circuit court’s finding is fully
supported by evidence that petitioner abused controlled substances despite the terms of his parole
and despite his brief participation in a substance abuse treatment facility.

         Petitioner further argues that because the mother was participating in an improvement
period and H.A. could achieve permanency in the mother’s custody, termination of his parental
rights was not necessary. However, we have previously held that West Virginia Code § 49-4-604
“permits the termination of one parent’s parental rights while leaving the rights of the
nonabusing parent completely intact, if the circumstances so warrant.” In re Emily, 208 W. Va.
325, 344, 540 S.E.2d 542, 561 (2000). In this instance, where petitioner abandoned the child,
failed to pay any child support, continued to abuse controlled substances, and resisted treatment
for his addictions, we find the circumstances warrant the termination of his parental rights,
regardless of the mother’s success in her improvement period. Accordingly, we find no error in
the circuit court’s decision to terminate petitioner’s parental rights to the child. See also Syl. Pt.
5, In re Kristin Y., 227 W. Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (2011) (holding that “[t]ermination of parental
rights . . . may be employed without the use of intervening less restrictive alternatives when it is
found that there is no reasonable likelihood . . . that the conditions of neglect or abuse can be
substantially corrected”).

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

                                                                                           Affirmed.

ISSUED: February 7, 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