Court Opinion

ID: 9840905
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-20 16:14:43.62896+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:29:32.083778
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 K.G.

No. 22-842 (Ohio County CC-35-2022-JA-75)

                               MEMORANDUM DECISION

       Petitioner Father D.G. 1 appeals the Circuit Court of Ohio County’s October 11, 2022, order
terminating his parental rights to K.G. 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 May 2022, the DHHR filed an abuse and neglect petition alleging that infant K.G. tested
positive “for suboxone, as well as amphetamines/methamphetamines” shortly after birth. Further,
the petition alleged that petitioner admitted that he used methamphetamines during the mother’s
pregnancy. Petitioner later stipulated to the drug use and was then adjudicated as “an abusive
and/or neglectful parent.”

        Petitioner subsequently filed a motion for a post-adjudicatory improvement period. The
circuit court held a hearing on the motion, where petitioner was not present but was represented
by counsel. The court received evidence that, other than two supervised visits, both parents failed
to appear for several visits and that further visitation was temporarily suspended due to both
parents’ failure to comply with drug screening. The court denied the motion and set the case for
disposition.

         The circuit court held a dispositional hearing in September 2022, receiving testimony from
a visitation supervisor, a DHHR worker, and petitioner. The visitation supervisor testified that she
supervised two visits with the child and the parents. At the first scheduled visit, petitioner watched

       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 Andrew T. Waight. Counsel Tyler L. Cline 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
a movie on his phone and left the visit early. Petitioner cancelled the next two scheduled visits due
to transportation issues. At the second visit he attended, petitioner fell asleep during the visit and
left the visit early. Petitioner failed to attend the next scheduled visit. The supervisor further
testified that she was directed to cancel the last scheduled visit because both parents stopped
attending drug screening. Additionally, she testified that, based on her observations during their
visits, she did not feel that petitioner had established any type of meaningful relationship with the
child.

        The DHHR worker testified that petitioner was directed by the court to attend drug
screening two to three times per week, depending on the call-in schedule, and that petitioner was
informed at a multidisciplinary team meeting that petitioner was not permitted to use any
substances, including alcohol. Petitioner did attend some drug screenings; however, two screens
returned a positive result for alcohol. Further, prior to his last screening on August 3, 2022,
petitioner failed to attend ten screens and did not attend any drug screens in the month between his
last screen and the dispositional hearing.

        After receiving testimony and evidence, the circuit court found that petitioner failed to
attend numerous court-ordered drug screens, tested positive for alcohol twice, failed to attend or
cancelled several visitations, and showed a “lack of parenting and commitment” at the two visits
he attended. The court found that there was “no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse
and neglect will be substantially correct in the near future” and that termination of petitioner’s
parental rights was necessary for K.G.’s welfare. Consequently, the court terminated petitioner’s
parental rights by order entered on October 11, 2022. 3 It is from this 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). Petitioner broadly argues that the circuit court
erred in terminating his parental rights and in not granting a less restrictive disposition. In support
of this contention, petitioner argues that “there was a reasonable likelihood that the conditions of
abuse or neglect could have been substantially corrected in the near future,” and, therefore, the
trial court should have “dispose[d] of the case in a manner less restrictive than termination of the
petitioner’s rights.” Petitioner’s argument, however, lacks a basis in the record.

        On the contrary, the record contains ample evidence of petitioner’s failure to participate in
court-ordered services throughout the case, including failing to attend visitation time with the
child, testing positive for alcohol, and missing multiple drug screens. According to West Virginia
Code § 49-4-604(d)(3), there is no reasonable likelihood conditions of abuse or neglect can be
substantially corrected when the parent has “not responded to or followed through with a
reasonable family case plan or other rehabilitative efforts.” Further, we have explained 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). Because the circuit court made the requisite

       3
         The mother’s parental rights were also terminated below. The permanency plan for K.G.
is to be adopted in his current foster placement.
                                                  2
findings based upon sufficient evidence to support termination of petitioner’s parental rights, we
find no error. See Syl. Pt. 5, In re Kristin Y., 227 W. Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (2011) (permitting
termination of parental rights “without the use of intervening less restrictive alternatives when it
is found that there is no reasonable likelihood . . . that 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
October 11, 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

                                                 3