Court Opinion

ID: 9840895
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-20 16:14:38.348834+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:29:53.882945
License: Public Domain

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

In re S.B.

No. 22-673 (Randolph County 21-JA-088)

                              MEMORANDUM DECISION

        Petitioner Mother J.B. 1 appeals the Circuit Court of Randolph County’s August 5, 2022,
order terminating her parental rights to S.B. 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 December 2021, the DHHR filed a petition alleging that petitioner gave birth to S.B.
and that her parental rights were previously terminated—voluntarily and involuntarily—in prior
proceedings to eight other children due to her transient lifestyle, abdication of parenting
responsibilities, emotional and psychiatric instability, and unhealthy romantic relationships with
various partners that resulted in domestic violence. The DHHR noted that it was required to seek
termination of petitioner’s rights to a subsequently born child due to the prior involuntary
terminations. It also alleged that the conditions of abuse and neglect from the prior terminations
had not been remedied.

        Petitioner participated in a forensic psychological examination of parental fitness and a
substance abuse evaluation with Dr. Edward Baker in April 2022, during which she blamed the
various fathers and the DHHR for the children’s removals and the terminations of her parental
rights. Referring to the first child’s removal, she claimed that the government used “falsified
papers” and “took” the child from her. She further indicated that this Court encouraged her to “sue
the hell out of Randolph County” and that she had been “railroaded” in her other cases. Petitioner
also reported that she will not “shove pills down [her] throat the doctors are recommending”
because that is how “you get people addicted to drugs.”

       1
        Petitioner appears by counsel Steven B. Nanners. The West Virginia Department of Health
and Human Resources (“DHHR”) appears by counsel Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and
Assistant Attorney General Katica Ribel. Counsel Heather Weese 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
        Regarding the current case, she stated that she had the governor “in her pocket” and that
she “worked for the government” when she actually worked for a private home care company for
the elderly and disabled. Dr. Baker noted that petitioner exhibited grandiose thinking, paranoid
ideation, and externalization of blame; he concluded that she took no responsibility for her past
behaviors that led to the initiation of this case. He found that petitioner’s insight and judgment
were poor and determined that petitioner was at high risk for parenting deficits, as she tends “to
treat children as objects for adult gratification.” Dr. Baker diagnosed petitioner with borderline
intellectual functioning and unspecified personality disorder with paranoid and borderline traits.
Dr. Baker also concluded that petitioner “lacks the introspection necessary to make substantive
changes even though she has lost 8 children, she takes absolutely no responsibility for how any of
her actions have led to these conclusions.” In his professional opinion, Dr. Baker found that
petitioner does “not have the parental capacity to care, protect and change in order to provide
adequately for her child at this time as she does not take responsibility for her situation and tends
to blame others.”

         In June 2022, the circuit court held an adjudicatory hearing and heard evidence of
petitioner’s prior involuntary terminations, as alleged in the petition, and that she had not corrected
the circumstances that led to the prior involuntary terminations. 3 The DHHR worker testified to
concerns noted in petitioner’s previous cases that included her inability to handle a crying infant;
provide adequate physical, hygienic, and medical care; and bond with the children. Dr. Baker
testified to his findings in his parental fitness evaluation of petitioner. Petitioner testified that
shortly after the termination of her parental rights in 2015, she attended individual therapy sessions
for three months. She also testified that she had employment, a suitable home, and the necessary
infant supplies to care for S.B. Petitioner stated that she stopped attending therapy because she did
not need it. At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court adjudicated petitioner as an abusing
parent and found that petitioner had not participated in “any parenting classes, any domestic
violence classes/healthy relationship classes or other services of that nature.” The court concluded
that petitioner demonstrated a lack of understanding of her prior circumstances that led to the prior
terminations of her parental rights to eight other children and that the DHHR proved by clear and
convincing evidence that petitioner had had no change of circumstances since her 2015 abuse and
neglect proceeding.

         The circuit court held a dispositional hearing in July 2022, wherein the DHHR moved to
terminate petitioner’s parental rights to S.B. Petitioner moved for an improvement period and
testified in support thereof. The court denied petitioner’s motion for an improvement period
finding that she failed to demonstrate that she was likely to fully participate in its terms and
conditions based upon her repeated failures to take corrective action to change her circumstances.
The court took judicial notice of the evidence presented at adjudication. It noted Dr. Baker’s
opinion that petitioner needed consistent therapy and counseling to manage her mental illness but
considered the fact that petitioner stopped participating in therapy after the termination of her
parental rights to another child in 2015. The court also voiced concern with Dr. Baker’s opinion
that petitioner treated children as objects for her own gratification and that petitioner lacked the

       3
        Petitioner appealed the termination of her parental rights to another child, and this Court
affirmed in In re T.R., No. 15-1235, 2016 WL 3165801, at *3 (W. Va. June 6, 2016)(memorandum
decision).

                                                  2
ability to safely parent a child. The court concluded that there was no reasonable likelihood that
the conditions of abuse and neglect could be corrected in the near future. It further found that S.B.
needed continuity in the care of caretakers and to be integrated into a stable home. Consequently,
the court terminated petitioner’s parental rights by order entered on August 5, 2022. 4

        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). First, petitioner argues that the circuit court erred
in adjudicating her as an abusing parent because she corrected the conditions of abuse and neglect
that led to prior cases by obtaining employment, housing, and baby items for S.B. and by having
a “good support network.” In this instance, “the issue of whether the parent has remedied the
problems which led to the prior involuntary termination sufficient to parent a subsequently-born
child must, at minimum, be reviewed by a court . . . [and] the legislature has reduced the minimum
threshold of evidence necessary for termination.” In re Kyiah P., 213 W. Va. 424, 427, 582 S.E.2d
871, 874 (2003) (citation omitted). The Court has held that

               [w]hen an abuse and neglect petition is brought based solely upon a
       previous involuntary termination of parental rights to a sibling pursuant . . . prior to
       the lower court’s making any disposition regarding the petition, it must allow the
       development of evidence surrounding the prior involuntary termination(s) and what
       actions, if any, the parent(s) have taken to remedy the circumstances which led to
       the prior termination(s).

Syl. Pt. 4, In re George Glen B., Jr., 205 W. Va. 435, 518 S.E.2d 863 (1999).

        Here, petitioner fails to acknowledge the root of the problems that led to the prior removals
and involuntary terminations of her parental rights—her inability to safely parent due to untreated
mental illness. The record shows that Dr. Baker opined that petitioner required extensive
individualized therapy and counseling to address her mental health issues, yet petitioner ceased
therapy shortly after the termination of her parental rights in 2015. Petitioner testified that she had
not participated in therapy or counseling since that time because she did not believe she needed it.
Although petitioner claimed that S.B. was not an abused and neglected child, the DHHR proved
that the child was at risk if she remained in petitioner’s care due to petitioner’s inability to safely
parent. See W. Va. Code § 49-1-201 (defining “neglected child,” in part, as one who is threatened
by a parent’s “failure or inability . . . to supply the child with necessary food, clothing, shelter,
supervision, medical care, or education”). Petitioner’s lack of insight into how her personality
disorder and untreated mental illness negatively impact her ability to safely parent a child
constitutes an ongoing risk to S.B.— the ninth child removed from her care. Here, the DHHR
established by clear and convincing evidence that S.B. was a neglected child, and we find no error
in the circuit court’s adjudication of petitioner. See W. Va. Code § 49-4-601(i) (requiring a circuit
court to find, “by clear and convincing evidence,” that a parent has abused and/or neglected a child
at the conclusion of the adjudicatory hearing).

       4
         The father voluntarily relinquished his parental rights. The permanency plan for the child
is adoption by a foster family.
                                                  3
        Petitioner also argues that the circuit court erred in denying her an improvement period.
Petitioner cites her testimony that she would cooperate with services and fully participate in an
improvement period. See W. Va. Code § 49-4-610(2). However, petitioner’s refusal to
acknowledge the conditions of abuse and neglect rendered the granting of an improvement period
useless. We have previously held that

       [i]n order to remedy the abuse and/or neglect problem, the problem must first be
       acknowledged. Failure to acknowledge the existence of the problem, i.e., the truth
       of the basic allegation pertaining to the alleged abuse and neglect or the perpetrator
       of said abuse and neglect, results in making the problem untreatable and in making
       an improvement period an exercise in futility at the child’s expense.

In re Timber M., 231 W. Va. 44, 55, 743 S.E.2d 352, 363 (2013) (citation omitted). Additionally,
petitioner’s long history of abdicating her parental responsibilities to others and her continuing
failure to provide necessities for the children were relevant to the court’s determination that
petitioner was not likely to improve. Although petitioner claimed she made some positive changes
and had a support network, petitioner did not meet her burden of showing that an improvement
period was warranted. As such, the circuit court did not err in denying petitioner an improvement
period.

        We, likewise, find no error in the termination of petitioner’s parental rights to S.B. Notably,
petitioner does not specifically challenge the findings required for termination. Nonetheless, the
evidence supports the circuit court’s determination when considering petitioner’s failure to
acknowledge her shortcomings and inability to safely parent due to untreated and unmanaged
mental health issues. See W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(d) (defining no reasonable likelihood that the
conditions of neglect or abuse can be substantially corrected to mean that the abusing parent has
“demonstrated an inadequate capacity to solve the problems of abuse or neglect on their own or
with help”); 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 . . . when it is found that there is no
reasonable likelihood . . . that the conditions of neglect or abuse can be substantially corrected”).
Finally, petitioner’s failure to acknowledge the conditions of abuse and neglect supports the court’s
finding that termination was necessary to protect the child from further abuse. Accordingly, we
find no error in the circuit court’s decision to terminate petitioner’s parental rights to S.B.

      For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the decision of the circuit court, and its
August 5, 2022, order 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

                                                  4