Court Opinion

ID: 9939452
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 21:20:43.155893+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:41:13.143597
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                              February 7, 2024
                               STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA                           C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK
                                                                              SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
                             SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS                              OF WEST VIRGINIA

In re K.B. and K.R.

No. 22-904 (Nicholas County CC-34-2022-JA-35 and CC-34-2021-JA-113)

                                MEMORANDUM DECISION

        Petitioner Mother S.R. 1 appeals the Circuit Court of Nicholas County’s November 18,
2022, order terminating her parental and custodial rights to K.B. and K.R. 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 October 2021, the DHS filed a petition alleging that petitioner was suffering from an
untreated mental health condition that impaired her parenting and created a risk to K.B.’s 3 well-
being, resulting in petitioner’s failure to protect K.B. According to the petition, petitioner was
arrested when she fled from officers after refusing to cooperate with a field sobriety test.
Petitioner was also incoherent and unable to form sentences when speaking with Child Protective
Services (“CPS”) workers. The petition further alleged that petitioner and K.B. had been
homeless for more than thirty days and were living in a camper with a man, but petitioner did not
know the man’s name, nor could she provide an address of the location of the camper. The

       1
        Petitioner appears by counsel Susie Hill. The West Virginia Department Human
Services appears by counsel Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and Assistant Attorney General
Andrew T. Waight. Counsel Taylor Graham appears as the children’s guardian ad litem.

       Additionally, pursuant to West Virginia Code § 5F-1-2, the agency formerly known as
the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources was terminated, effective
January 1, 2024, and is now three separate agencies—the Department of Health Facilities, the
Department of Health, and the Department of Human Services. 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).
       3
           At the time the petition was filed, K.R. had not yet been born.

                                                   1
petition further alleged that petitioner had previously been adjudicated as an abusive and
neglectful parent for substance abuse and homelessness.

        In December 2021, petitioner was adjudicated as an abusive and neglectful parent. The
case proceeded to a dispositional hearing in March 2022. Prior to the hearing, petitioner filed a
motion for a post-dispositional improvement period. Upon recommendation from the DHS and
K.B.’s guardian ad litem, the circuit court granted the motion, which outlined certain terms and
conditions petitioner agreed to follow. In May 2022, the DHS moved to revoke the improvement
period for petitioner’s noncompliance with the conditions of the improvement period. A judicial
review hearing was held in June 2022 wherein the circuit court denied the DHS’s motion to
revoke and permitted the improvement period to continue for an additional two months. A few
days later, petitioner gave birth to K.R. After K.R.’s birth, the DHS filed an amended petition
adding allegations of abuse and neglect against K.R. The amended petition alleged that
petitioner’s doctor advised petitioner that she needed to deliver K.R., but petitioner left the
hospital against medical advice. Petitioner returned the following day and delivered K.R. The
amended petition further alleged that the CPS worker was informed by hospital staff that they
believed petitioner was having a mental health “breakdown.”

        In August 2022, petitioner was adjudicated as an abusive and neglectful parent to K.R.
upon the allegations in the amended petition. Despite having no written or oral motion from
petitioner, the circuit court also denied petitioner an improvement period finding that petitioner
would be a danger to the children based on the evidence presented at the hearing.

        In November 2022, the circuit court held another dispositional hearing, during which the
DHS presented evidence of petitioner’s failure to comply with services, aggressive and erratic
behavior, and homelessness. Specifically, the circuit court heard testimony from a CPS worker
that petitioner made threats to DHS employees necessitating the cessation of services. The CPS
worker further testified that petitioner refused to participate in services and refused to accept
responsibility for her involvement in the case. Additionally, the CPS worker explained that
petitioner was homeless and unemployed due to her aggressive behavior with neighbors and
coworkers.

        Based on the evidence, the circuit court found that the children’s best interests required
termination of petitioner’s parental rights because petitioner refused or was unwilling to
cooperate in the development of a reasonable family case plan; did not respond to or follow
through with rehabilitative efforts or agencies; and habitually abused or was addicted to alcohol,
controlled substances, or drugs. Accordingly, the court terminated petitioner’s parental rights to
the children. 4 Following the dispositional hearing, petitioner filed a motion to amend the final
order requesting removal of language finding that petitioner abused or was addicted to drugs and
alcohol from the dispositional order as it was inaccurate. The circuit court did not rule on
petitioner’s motion. As such, it is from the dispositional order that petitioner appeals.

       4
         Both fathers’ parental rights were terminated in prior proceedings. The permanency plan
for the children is adoption in their current placements.

                                                2
        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 first argues that the circuit court erred when it failed to amend the final order
because it contained a factual finding that petitioner habitually abused or was addicted to
alcohol, controlled substances, or drugs, which finding was unsupported by the evidence. We
find no merit in petitioner’s argument. There is no provision for a motion to amend a final order
in the West Virginia Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings, Chapter 49 of
the West Virginia Code, or the applicable West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure. See W. Va. R.
Civ. P. 81(a)(7) (“Rules 5(b), 5(e) and 80 apply, but the other rules do not apply, to juvenile
proceedings brought under the provisions of chapter 49 [§ 49-1-1 et seq.] of the West Virginia
Code.”). Indeed, on appeal to this Court, petitioner cites to no authority that allows for the filing
of such motion. Accordingly, any alleged error by the circuit court for refusing to consider
petitioner’s motion to amend the final order is misplaced given that the circuit court had no duty
to consider a motion for which the law does not provide. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to no
relief in this regard.

        Notwithstanding the lack of a procedural mechanism for filing a motion to amend under
these circumstances, we recognize that the record lacks sufficient evidence supporting the circuit
court’s finding that petitioner habitually abused or was addicted to alcohol, controlled
substances, or drugs. Despite this apparent error, we do not find that vacation of the dispositional
order is warranted under the specific circumstances of this case. Petitioner does not allege that
the circuit court’s other findings supporting termination of her parental rights were erroneous. In
fact, the record overwhelmingly establishes that petitioner refused to accept responsibility for her
conduct, failed to participate in remedial services, and that termination of her parental rights was
in the children’s best interests. As such, the termination of petitioner’s parental rights is not in
dispute. See W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(c)(6) (permitting termination of parental rights upon
findings no reasonable likelihood conditions of abuse and neglect and when necessary for child’s
welfare). Therefore, we find no reversible error in this regard.

         Petitioner also argues that the circuit court erred by not granting her an improvement
period after the birth of K.R., but she ignores the fact that the court granted her an improvement
period at the dispositional hearing in March 2022. This improvement period continued until the
August 2022 adjudicatory hearing—two months after K.R.’s birth. On appeal, petitioner asserts
that she was entitled to an additional improvement period because K.R.’s birth allowed her to be
medicated for her mental health condition, but the record shows that petitioner failed to address
her mental health in the two months she was under an improvement period after K.R. was born.
As such, these arguments cannot entitle her to relief. Furthermore, petitioner made an oral
motion for a continuation of her post-dispositional improvement period at the November 2022
dispositional hearing rather than a motion for a second improvement period. Thus, petitioner’s
reliance before this Court on the requirements set forth in West Virginia Code § 49-4-610(2)(D)
to be granted a second improvement period is misplaced. Pursuant to West Virginia Code § 49-4-
610(6), before a circuit court can grant an extension of an improvement period, the court must
first find that the parent has substantially complied with the terms of the improvement period,
among other requirements. Here, we find that there is no evidence in the record demonstrating

                                                  3
that petitioner substantially complied with the terms of her post-dispositional improvement
period. Accordingly, we find that an extension to petitioner’s improvement period would not
have been proper.

     For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the decision of the circuit court, and its
November 18, 2022, order is hereby affirmed.

                                                                                    Affirmed.

ISSUED: February 7, 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