Court Opinion

ID: 9960365
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-15 23:17:45.537696+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:23.754953
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                                   April 15, 2024
                                                                                   C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK
                                                                                 SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
                             STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA                                   OF WEST VIRGINIA

                           SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

In re M.B.-1, M.B.-2, M.B.-3, D.B., E.B., and I.B.

No. 23-149 (Wirt County CC-53-2020-JA-5, CC-53-2020-JA-6, CC-53-2020-JA-7, CC-53-2020-
JA-8, CC-53-2020-JA-9, and CC-53-2020-JA-10)

                               MEMORANDUM DECISION

       Petitioner Father R.B.1 appeals the Circuit Court of Wirt County’s February 13, 2023, order
terminating his parental, custodial, and guardianship rights to M.B.-1, M.B.-2, M.B.-3, D.B., E.B.,
and I.B.,2 arguing that the court erred in denying him a post-adjudicatory improvement period,
terminating his parental rights when the conditions of abuse and neglect were correctable, and
denying him post-termination visitation. 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 2020, the DHS filed a petition alleging that petitioner and the mother abused
and neglected the children by subjecting them to uninhabitable conditions in the home and failing
to protect them from sexual abuse. According to the petition, the home was covered in trash, feces,
roaches, mold, bedbugs, and fleas. Several children stated that they wanted to leave the home and
would frequently sleep at a neighbor’s home “because of being bitten by bugs at their home.”

       1
        Petitioner appears by counsel Wells H. Dillon. The West Virginia Department of Human
Services appears by counsel Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and Deputy Attorney General
Steven R. Compton. Counsel Michael D. Farnsworth Jr. appears as the children’s guardian ad
litem.

       Additionally, pursuant to West Virginia Code § 5F-2-1a, the agency formerly known as
the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources was terminated. It is now three
separate agencies—the Department of Health Facilities, the Department of Health, and the
Department of Human Services. See W. Va. Code § 5F-1-2. 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). Further, because several children share the same initials, we use numbers
to differentiate them.

                                                  1
Further, another child in the home, K.B.,3 reported to the DHS that the maternal grandfather
“sexually molested [her] for over a year.” Finally, the petition noted that the parents had a history
with Child Protective Services in Arizona. The DHS later amended the petition to allege that
petitioner physically abused the children through inappropriate discipline.

        After a series of continuances, the court held an adjudicatory hearing in October 2021,
during which petitioner stipulated to exposing the children to inappropriate individuals, thereby
seriously endangering their health and wellbeing, and using inappropriate discipline. Based on
petitioner’s stipulation, the court found that he abused and neglected the children.

        The court then held a series of dispositional hearings, during which it heard from multiple
witnesses. Relevant to the resolution of this appeal, the court heard testimony during a February
2022 hearing from a psychologist who evaluated the parents. According to the psychologist, the
parents admitted that “there have been multiple instances of sexual abuse by multiple
perpetrators.” The psychologist testified that the prognosis for petitioner to attain minimally
adequate parenting was “poor,” based, in part, on petitioner’s minimization of the children’s abuse.
Further, when questioned about whether petitioner’s participation in services would impact her
opinion on petitioner’s ability to parent, the psychologist stated that petitioner had “not
demonstrated sustained behavioral change and sustained improvement in [his] supervisory tactics
and [his] parenting style over long periods of time.” During that hearing, the court also heard
testimony from two individuals who observed multiple visits between the parents and the children.
According to one witness, the children eventually refused to attend visits with petitioner. The other
witness testified that the children did not have a bond with petitioner, and she stated that several
of the children “didn’t really seem like they cared to see [him] or not.” Finally, an individual who
provided parenting services to petitioner testified that he denied issues with improperly supervising
the children and claimed that “the only deficiency [he] thought they had was a dirty home.” Based
on the evidence, the court found that there was no reasonable likelihood that petitioner could
substantially correct the conditions of abuse and neglect in the near future, especially considering
that he “did not take the sexual abuse seriously,” and that termination of his rights was necessary
for the children’s welfare. Accordingly, the court terminated petitioner’s parental, custodial, and
guardianship rights to the children.4 It is from the dispositional 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). Before this Court, petitioner first argues that the
circuit court erred in denying him a post-adjudicatory improvement period. However, petitioner
fails to include citation to the record demonstrating that he filed a written motion to this effect. As
we have explained, “[a] circuit court may not grant a post-adjudicatory improvement period under
W. Va. Code § 49-4-610(2) (eff. 2015) unless the respondent to the abuse and neglect petition files

       3
         K.B. reached the age of majority during the proceedings and was dismissed prior to
disposition. As such, K.B. is not at issue in this appeal.
       4
         The mother’s parental rights were also terminated. The permanency plan for the children
is adoption.

                                                  2
a written motion requesting the improvement period.” Syl. Pt. 4, State ex rel. P.G.-1 v. Wilson,
247 W. Va. 235, 878 S.E.2d 730 (2021). Because petitioner failed to comply with the applicable
Rules of Appellate Procedure, he is entitled to no relief. See W. Va. R. App. P. 10(c)(7) (requiring
that briefs “must contain appropriate and specific citations to the record on appeal, including
citations that pinpoint when and how the issues in the assignments of error were presented to the
lower tribunal” and permitting this Court to “disregard errors that are not adequately supported by
specific references to the record on appeal”).

          Next, petitioner argues that the court erred in terminating his parental rights because he
could have corrected the conditions of abuse and neglect. In support, petitioner cites to various
evidence to argue that he addressed the physical conditions in the home, moved to a larger
residence, and participated in parenting and adult life skills. However, petitioner ignores the fact
that the psychologist who evaluated him indicated that petitioner minimized the children’s abuse,
including their repeated sexual abuse, and that another provider testified that the only deficiency
petitioner acknowledged was the condition of the home. As we have explained, such failure to
acknowledge renders conditions of abuse and neglect untreatable. See In re Timber M., 231 W.
Va. 44, 55, 743 S.E.2d 352, 363 (2013) (“Failure to acknowledge the existence of the problem,
i.e., the truth of the basic allegation pertaining to the alleged abuse and neglect . . . results in making
the problem untreatable . . . .” (citation omitted)). Regardless of the evidence upon which petitioner
relies, his refusal to fully acknowledge the abuse to which he previously stipulated and his
minimization of permitting multiple individuals to perpetrate sexual abuse on the children
constitute a situation in which there is no reasonable likelihood he could correct these conditions.
Further, the court correctly found that the children’s welfare required termination, based on their
need for, among other things, continuity of care and caretakers and the older children’s wishes.
Accordingly, we find no error in the termination of petitioner’s parental, custodial, and
guardianship rights to the children. See W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(c)(6) (permitting circuit court to
terminate parental, custodial, and guardianship rights upon finding no reasonable likelihood that
conditions of abuse and neglect can be substantially corrected in the near future and when
necessary for child’s welfare); see also Syl. Pt. 5, In re Kristin Y., 227 W. Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55
(2011) (permitting termination of parental, custodial, and guardianship 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” (citation omitted)).

         Finally, petitioner argues that the court erred in denying him post-termination visitation
with the children. As we have explained, when considering whether post-termination visitation is
appropriate, “the circuit court should consider whether a close emotional bond has been established
between parent and child.” Syl. Pt. 11, in part, In re Daniel D., 211 W. Va. 79, 562 S.E.2d 147
(2002) (citation omitted). While petitioner argues that he had a close bond with the children,
visitation supervisors testified to the contrary, indicating that no bond existed and many of the
children displayed disinterest in visiting petitioner. In denying post-termination visitation, the
court clearly weighed the credibility of the witnesses, and we decline to disturb this determination.
See Michael D.C. v. Wanda L.C., 201 W. Va. 381, 388, 497 S.E.2d 531, 538 (1997) (“A reviewing
court cannot assess witness credibility through a record. The trier of fact is uniquely situated to
make such determinations and this Court is not in a position to, and will not, second guess such
determinations.”). Accordingly, we find that petitioner is entitled to no relief.

                                                    3
       For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the decision of the circuit court, and its
February 13, 2023, order is hereby affirmed.

                                                                                      Affirmed.

ISSUED: April 15, 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