Court Opinion

ID: 9840898
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-20 16:14:39.845376+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:29:31.297207
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 M.W.-1 and C.W.

No. 22-829 (Braxton County CC-04-2021-JA-12 and CC-04-2021-JA-13)

                               MEMORANDUM DECISION

        Petitioner Mother M.W.-2 1 appeals the Circuit Court of Braxton County’s September 12,
2022, dispositional order determining custody of M.W.-1 and C.W. 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 March 2021, the DHHR filed an abuse and neglect petition against petitioner alleging
that both children witnessed domestic violence in the home between petitioner and their maternal
grandmother. The petition also discussed petitioner’s mental health issues and truancy concerns
with C.W. Following the preliminary hearing, the father was given custody of both children for
the duration of the proceedings. At the adjudicatory hearing, petitioner was adjudicated as an
abusive and neglectful parent and was granted a post-adjudicatory improvement period. It was
undisputed that petitioner successfully completed her post-adjudicatory improvement period and
corrected the conditions of abuse and neglect at issue. The court then scheduled the matter for
disposition to determine final custody placement, taking testimony on both May 17, 2022, and
June 2, 2022.

       The court received testimony from DHHR workers, service providers, and M.W.-1 and
C.W., in camera, as well as evidence and prior testimony from school officials and law
enforcement given at the adjudicatory hearing. In the circuit court’s dispositional order, the court
recounted that, prior to the petition’s filing, petitioner was the primary custodial parent. The

       1
        Petitioner appears by counsel Jonathan Fittro. The West Virginia Department of Health
and Human Resources (“DHHR”) appears by counsel Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and
Assistant Attorney General Katica Ribel. Counsel Julia Callaghan appears as the children’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). Additionally, because one of the children and petitioner share the same
initials, we will refer to them as M.W.-1 and M.W.-2, respectively.

                                                  1
evidence indicated that the children had poor attendance and low grade averages while in
petitioner’s care and their attendance and grades both improved while in their father’s care.
Although the court commended petitioner for her successful completion of her improvement
period, the court took note of the abuse and neglect the children experienced.

        The court noted petitioner’s mental health conditions, though found that petitioner’s
conditions “would not affect her parenting ability so long as she took her medications as
prescribed” and continued with therapy. However, the court expressed concern that petitioner “has
not shown a willingness to follow her mental health provider’s advice and regularly take her
medications as prescribed.” Additionally, the court expressed concern that petitioner had not
addressed her inability to independently financially support herself and the children, while the
father “has maintained full-time employment and has the financial ability to provide for the care,
maintenance, and support of the children.”

        The guardian and the DHHR recommended that petitioner and father share legal custody,
with the father as the primary custodial parent. Through in camera testimony, both children, then
ages fifteen and twelve, also shared a preference to continue living with their father and their desire
to remain together as siblings. Consequently, the court awarded “physical and primary custody"
to the father and found that permanency had been achieved by order entered on September 12,
2022. 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 contends that the circuit court erred in
granting primary custody to the father, arguing that the children should have been returned to her
care after her successful completion of the improvement period. We disagree, however, as the
applicable statutes and our prior holdings required the circuit court to award custody in a manner
consistent with protecting the children’s welfare.

        We have previously held that a “circuit court is obligated to apply the factors and
considerations set forth in [West Virginia Code § 48-9-206] . . . in allocating custodial . . .
responsibilities when reunifying children subject to abuse and neglect proceedings.” Syl. Pt. 5, in
part, In re T.M., 242 W. Va. 268, 835 S.E.2d 132 (2019). 3 Additionally, we have held that, where
findings of abuse or neglect have been established, “the circuit court must further employ the
mandatory considerations and procedures set forth in West Virginia Code § 48-9-209 (2016), in
order to protect the children from further abuse and/or neglect.” Id. While West Virginia Code
§ 49-9-206(a) normally requires a court to “allocate custodial responsibility so that . . . the
custodial time the child spends with each parent shall be equal,” that statute also limits such
allocation “to the extent required under § 48-9-209.” Importantly, West Virginia Code § 48-9-209
requires a circuit court approving a permanent parenting plan to consider several factors, including
whether a parent “[h]as abused, neglected, or abandoned a child.” Finally, West Virginia Code

       3
         This holding also requires courts to address decision-making authority in compliance with
West Virginia Code § 48-9-207(b). However, petitioner does not challenge the court’s award of
equal decision-making on appeal, thereby rendering analysis of this statute unnecessary for
resolution of her appeal.
                                                  2
§ 48-9-209(b) requires a circuit court to “impose limits that are reasonably calculated to protect
the child . . . from harm” when a parent has engaged in this conduct, such as adjusting the custodial
responsibility of the parents or allocating exclusive custodial responsibility to one of the parents.

         We commend petitioner for the successful completion of her improvement period, and it
is this successful completion that resulted in petitioner keeping her parental rights and sharing legal
custody with the children’s father. However, we disagree with petitioner’s position that, because
she completed her improvement period, she must be named as the primary custodial parent, as she
previously was. Where abuse and/or neglect has been substantiated, the circuit court is required to
consider that abuse and/or neglect at disposition, even when an adjudicated parent has successfully
completed an improvement period. West Virginia Code § 48-9-209(b) gives circuit courts the
discretion to change the allocation of custodial responsibility to protect children from future harm.
See T.M., 242 W. Va. at 280, 835 S.E.2d at 144 (“Section 209’s provisions bestow broad discretion
on a court making a custodial allocation to ensure that a child is protected from any harm the abuse
and neglect findings potentially forecast.”). Here, after considering relevant factors and
enumerating concerns for the children, the circuit court allocated custodial responsibility in its
discretion to secure the children’s safety and welfare.

      For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the decision of the circuit court, and its
September 12, 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