Court Opinion

ID: 9948700
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-07 18:17:17.735715+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:47.470444
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                                    March 6, 2024
                                                                                    C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK
                              STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA                              SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
                            SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS                                   OF WEST VIRGINIA

In re D.H., E.H.-1, and H.H.

No. 23-281 (Kanawha County 22-JA-410, 22-JA-411, and 22-JA-412)

                               MEMORANDUM DECISION

        Petitioner Father E.H.-21 appeals the Circuit Court of Kanawha County’s April 17, 2023,
order terminating his parental rights to the children, D.H., E.H.-1, and H.H.2 He argues that the
circuit court erred by terminating his parental rights rather than imposing a less restrictive
dispositional alternative. 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 September 2022, the DHS filed a child abuse and neglect petition alleging extreme
domestic violence by petitioner against the mother in the presence of the children. Law
enforcement responded to a vehicle accident where they found a vehicle had been crashed into an
embankment and the driver had fled the scene. Shortly thereafter, law enforcement was advised of
a domestic disturbance at the home of the registered owner of the vehicle. Upon their arrival at the
home, they found petitioner with his hands around the mother’s neck and beating her head against
a wall. While being arrested, petitioner struck a police officer in the face. Law enforcement
described petitioner as smelling of alcohol and having bloodshot and droopy eyes. The mother

       1
        Petitioner appears by counsel Jason S. Lord. The West Virginia Department of Human
Services appears by counsel Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and Assistant Attorney General
Andrew Waight. Counsel Sandra K. Bullman appears as the children’s guardian ad litem
(“guardian”).

       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). Additionally, because one of the children and petitioner share the same
initials, we will refer to them as E.H.-1 and E.H.-2, respectively.

                                                  1
disclosed that petitioner threatened to kill her. She went on to reveal that petitioner “beat her up
black and blue” approximately every six months, and she described several prior domestic violence
events. Petitioner stated that the mother fabricated the allegations because he was a successful
rapper and the mother wanted his money. The children were present in the home and recounted
that “daddy choked mommy and mommy couldn’t breathe.” Based on the foregoing incident,
petitioner was charged with domestic battery, domestic assault and strangulation, battery of an
officer, failure to fingerprint, and driving under the influence. He remained incarcerated
throughout the proceedings.

         In January 2023, the court held an adjudicatory hearing at which time the court was advised
that, in the parallel criminal case, petitioner pled guilty to a felony offense of attempted
strangulation and a misdemeanor offense of battery on a police officer. The remainder of the
criminal charges were dismissed according to an order accepting petitioner’s plea agreement. The
court took judicial notice of petitioner’s guilty plea in the criminal case for purposes of the instant
abuse and neglect proceeding. The court then heard testimony of a police officer who participated
in petitioner’s arrest. Petitioner elected not to testify. Based on the evidence presented, the court
found that petitioner committed acts of domestic violence in the presence of the children,
adjudicating petitioner as an abusing and neglecting parent and finding the children were abused
and neglected.

         The court proceeded to disposition in April 2023, at which time the DHS and guardian
supported termination of petitioner’s parental rights. The court heard testimony of a DHS worker
who recommended termination of petitioner’s parental rights (without visitation) due to the level
and history of violence. The DHS worker testified that petitioner did not participate in services or
visit the children throughout the pendency of the proceeding. Her testimony further revealed that
petitioner violated the mother’s domestic violence protective order by attempting to contact her
from prison multiple times. While petitioner initially elected not to testify, he requested to speak
following closing arguments and prior to the court’s ruling. The court permitted him to do so, and
petitioner stated, “I took responsibility for a lot of allegations they put on me so I’ve been trying
to get through this, but I never hurt my girls and I never will.” Based on the evidence, the court
found that there was no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse and neglect could be
substantially corrected in the near future, as petitioner had not made sufficient efforts to rectify the
circumstances that led to the filing of the petition. Therefore, the court found that there were no
reasonable available less drastic alternatives and that the best interests of the children required
termination. The court further denied any post-termination visitation. It is from the final
dispositional order that petitioner appeals.3

        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 argues that the court erred by
terminating his parental rights rather than imposing a less restrictive alternative, as the mother’s
parental rights remained intact. Petitioner’s argument ignores our previous direction that West

       3
        The mother of the children successfully completed an improvement period, and the
children were reunified with her. The permanency plan is for the children to remain in the mother’s
care.
                                                   2
Virginia Code § 49-4-604 “permits the termination of one parent’s parental rights while leaving
the rights of the nonabusing parent completely intact, if the circumstances so warrant.” In re Emily,
208 W. Va. 325, 344, 540 S.E.2d 542, 561 (2000). Further, “simply because one parent has been
found to be a fit and proper caretaker for [the] child does not automatically entitle the child’s other
parent to retain his/her parental rights if his/her conduct has endangered the child and such
conditions of abuse and/or neglect are not expected to improve.” Id. The circuit court correctly
found that petitioner’s horrific domestic violence against the mother endangered the children in
this case, as it occurred in their presence, and that the conditions could not substantially improve
in the near future. Given petitioner’s failure to acknowledge these conditions, it is clear the court’s
finding that they could not be improved was appropriate. 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 . . . results in
making the problem untreatable” (citation omitted)). Ultimately, the court properly found
termination of petitioner’s parental rights to be in the children’s best interests. See W. Va. Code §
49-4-604(c)(6) (permitting a circuit court to terminate parental rights upon finding no reasonable
likelihood 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 part, 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 and abuse can be substantially corrected”).

        Petitioner further argues that the court erred by not allowing post-termination visitation
and, in support of that argument, cites the following holding:

                 “When parental rights are terminated due to neglect or abuse, the circuit
        court may nevertheless in appropriate cases consider whether continued visitation
        or other contact with the abusing parent is in the best interest of the child. Among
        other things, the circuit court should consider whether a close emotional bond has
        been established between parent and child and the child’s wishes, if he or she is of
        appropriate maturity to make such request. The evidence must indicate that such
        visitation or continued contact would not be detrimental to the child’s well being
        and would be in the child’s best interest.” Syl. Pt. 5, In re Christina L., 194 W.Va.
        446, 460 S.E.2d 692 (1995).

Syl. Pt. 11, In re Daniel D., 211 W. Va. 79, 562 S.E.2d 147 (2002). However, petitioner points to
no evidence of a close emotional bond with the children or that visitation would not be detrimental
to the children’s wellbeing or would be in the children’s best interest. In fact, our review of the
record suggests the opposite, as petitioner did not attempt to visit the children during the pendency
of the proceedings, and the children were exposed to extreme domestic violence when previously
in his care. We, therefore, find no error by the circuit court in this regard.

       For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the decision of the circuit court, and its April
17, 2023, order is hereby affirmed.

                                                                                                Affirmed.

                                                    3
ISSUED: March 6, 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