Court Opinion

ID: 9389605
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-25 20:11:48.035978+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:28.684002
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                                  April 25, 2023
                             STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA                             EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK
                           SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS                             SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                     OF WEST VIRGINIA

In re A.Y.

No. 22-551 (Mercer County 19-JAT-427)

                              MEMORANDUM DECISION

       Petitioner Father C.Y.1 appeals the Circuit Court of Mercer County’s June 1, 2022, order
terminating his custodial and guardianship rights to A.Y.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 April of 2019, the DHHR filed a petition alleging that A.Y. was truant, having missed
twenty-seven days during the 2018-2019 school year. Upon investigation, the DHHR also
discovered that the conditions in the home were unfit for the child, as it was “covered in dog feces”
and lacked power and water. The conditions in the home were addressed prior to the petition’s
filing through an in-home safety plan. It appears that the child was permitted to remain in the home
following the petition’s filing.

        In July of 2019, the court held an adjudicatory hearing, during which the Attendance
Director for the Mercer County Board of Education testified to A.Y.’s truancy. The court then took
the issue of adjudication under advisement. Following this hearing, petitioner was generally
cooperative with services, but A.Y.’s school attendance issues persisted.

        In March of 2021, the DHHR sought emergency custody of A.Y. because of her continuing
absences from school, coupled with petitioner’s failure to cooperate with DHHR services. The
court heard evidence of continued truancy and its negative impact on A.Y.’s grades. As such, the
court removed the child from the home. After two continuances of further adjudicatory hearings,
one of which was necessitated by petitioner’s failure to appear, petitioner stipulated to educational

       1
        Petitioner appears by counsel John G. Byrd. The West Virginia Department of Health and
Human Resources (“DHHR”) appears by counsel Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and Assistant
Attorney General Katherine A. Campbell. Thomas M. Janutolo Jr. 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
neglect in September of 2021. The circuit court also granted petitioner a post-adjudicatory
improvement period, which required, among other things, that he submit to random drug screens.

        By January of 2022, the multidisciplinary team (“MDT”) had suspended petitioner’s visits
with the child, and the DHHR requested a dispositional hearing because of petitioner’s
noncompliance. The DHHR later agreed to an extension of the improvement period under a zero-
tolerance policy for noncompliance, but petitioner failed to cooperate. The court held a
dispositional hearing in May of 2022, during which the DHHR and guardian sought termination
of petitioner’s rights. During the hearing, a DHHR worker testified that petitioner lacked stable
housing, failed to appear for MDT meetings, and did not complete the requirements of his
improvement period. According to the worker, petitioner failed to show for appointments or
maintain contact with the DHHR. The worker also testified that petitioner consistently tested
positive for marijuana. Critically, the worker explained that when the child was removed, she
functioned at a second-grade level. At the time of the hearing, the child functioned at a sixth-grade
level and was on her school’s honor roll.

        Petitioner testified that he was fully employed and had appropriate housing. According to
petitioner, the DHHR discriminated against him because of past involvement with Child Protective
Services. Petitioner also admitted that the child suffered from truancy issues even when the DHHR
was providing supportive services. He also admitted that he would test positive for marijuana if
tested.

        Based on the evidence, the court found that there was no reasonable likelihood that
petitioner could substantially correct the conditions of neglect in the foreseeable future and that
termination of petitioner’s custodial and guardianship rights was necessary to protect the child
from “serious concerns for [her] safety” and petitioner’s “histor[y] of instability and inability to
provide for [the child’s] . . . education needs.” Accordingly, the court terminated petitioner’s
custodial and guardianship rights.3 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 argues that it was
error to terminate his rights because the DHHR “never did anything to assist in remedying the
truancy issue other than removing A.Y. from the house.” This argument, however, has no basis
whatsoever in the record. To begin, the DHHR attempted to remedy the truancy issue without
removing the child from the home. Specifically, the DHHR implemented services before filing a
petition, which were unsuccessful. Once a petition was filed, the child was permitted to remain in
the home for approximately two years, during which time petitioner received parenting education
designed to remedy this lone issue. Despite the DHHR’s extensive attempts to correct the simple
issue of educational neglect, the child ultimately had to be removed from the home because
petitioner demonstrated an inability to improve. On appeal, petitioner argues that the DHHR failed
to provide the family with an internet connection, transportation, or other services tailored

       3
         The mother’s custodial and guardianship rights were also terminated. The permanency
plan for the child is legal guardianship in the current placement.
                                                  2
specifically to the child’s education.4 What petitioner fails to recognize, however, is that he failed
to comply with the services that were offered, thereby demonstrating that additional services would
have been equally ignored. Indeed, when a parent is granted an improvement period, they “shall
be responsible for the initiation and completion of all terms of the improvement period.” W. Va.
Code § 49-4-610(4)(A). Here, petitioner failed to accept this responsibility, thereby demonstrating
that additional services would have been superfluous.

         Finally, petitioner argues that the circuit court erred in terminating his custodial and
guardianship rights upon allegations of drug use, an issue that was not contained in any petition
and for which he was not adjudicated. This argument misrepresents the record concerning the
court’s dispositional decision. The order on appeal mentions in passing that “the testimony
indicates current issues for both [a]dult [r]espondents with substance abuse.” This was a direct
result of testimony establishing that petitioner failed roughly six drug screens and failed to appear
for several other screens. However, the order makes it clear that petitioner’s rights were terminated
because of his inability to correct the child’s truancy issue by virtue of his noncompliance and
failure to remain in contact with the DHHR. Because petitioner’s argument lacks a basis in the
record, he cannot be entitled to relief. Instead, we find that the court had ample evidence upon
which to base the findings necessary for termination of petitioner’s custodial and guardianship
rights. See W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(c)(6) (permitting a circuit court to terminate custodial and
guardianship rights upon finding that there is no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of
neglect can be substantially corrected in the near future and when necessary for the 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 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 .
. . can be substantially corrected”).

       For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the decision of the circuit court, and its June
1, 2022, order is hereby affirmed.

                                                                                            Affirmed.

ISSUED: April 25, 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
         Petitioner spends a considerable amount of the appellate brief discussing an apparent
failure by the DHHR to transport the child to her grandfather’s funeral. Even if the DHHR did fail
to effectuate transportation to the funeral, this issue has no bearing on whether termination of
petitioner’s custodial and guardianship rights was in error.
                                                  3