Court Opinion

ID: 9893072
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-25 19:14:14.042439+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:52:46.696231
License: Public Domain

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

                              SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS                                  OF WEST VIRGINIA

In re K.J.

No. 23-230 (Roane County CC-44-2022-JA-7)

                                 MEMORANDUM DECISION

       Petitioner Father T.G. 1 appeals the Circuit Court of Roane County’s April 3, 2023, order
granting equal custody of K.J. to both parents. 2 Upon our review, we determine that oral argument
is unnecessary and that a memorandum decision vacating the circuit court’s April 3, 2023, order
and remanding for further proceedings is appropriate, in accordance with the “limited
circumstances” requirement of Rule 21(d) of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure.

        In January 2022, the DHHR filed a petition alleging that the mother admitted to abusing
heroin, Xanax, and methamphetamine during her pregnancy with M.W., a child not at issue on
appeal. 3 The mother also tested positive for methamphetamine upon admission to the hospital to
give birth. The DHHR further alleged that this was the third abuse and neglect petition filed against
the mother for substance abuse, the first two having been filed in 2014 and 2015 and both having
resulted in the mother’s adjudication as an abusing parent. Importantly, the 2015 proceeding was
initiated after the mother gave birth to K.J., who was born with drugs in her system. 4 In the current
petition, the DHHR did not include any allegations against petitioner, K.J.’s nonabusing father,
with whom the child was placed upon removal from the mother’s custody. The DHHR later
amended the petition to include an allegation that the mother tested positive for methamphetamine
after the original petition’s filing.

       1
        Petitioner appears by counsel David B. Richardson. The West Virginia Department of
Health and Human Resources (“DHHR”) appears by counsel Attorney General Patrick Morrisey
and Assistant Attorney General Lee Niezgoda. Counsel Leslie L. Maze appears as the child’s
guardian ad litem. Respondent Mother H.J. appears by counsel Ryan M. Ruth.
       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
           M.W. is not at issue in this appeal because petitioner is not the child’s biological parent.
       4
        According to the record, the mother successfully completed an improvement period in that
matter and regained custody of the child.

                                                    1
       In February 2022, the mother stipulated to substance abuse impairing her ability to parent,
and the circuit court adjudicated her as an abusing parent. The following month, the court
continued the matter, generally, upon the mother’s acceptance into the Roane/Calhoun County
Family Treatment Court.

        In July 2022, the DHHR filed a court report indicating that K.J. was “doing very well with
her father and stepmother.” According to the DHHR, the child’s “grades improved and she now
looks forward to attending school.” Critically, the DHHR indicated that the child was “back on
track with her medical appointments in Morgantown to follow up on leukemia” 5 and “[s]he has
been back to the dentist and has regular checkups.” The DHHR also noted that the child looked
forward to time with the mother. Additionally, the record contains a psychological evaluation for
the mother that resulted in a prognosis of “very poor” for improved parenting within a reasonable
period of time. Despite this prognosis, the mother was granted unsupervised weekend visits with
the child in August 2022.

       In December 2022, the Family Treatment Court issued a discharge summary for the mother
in which it concluded that she had shown stabilization in her recovery but set forth several
recommendations needed for her to maintain sobriety. The following month, the Family Treatment
Court issued an order dismissing the mother’s case and returning the matter to the circuit court.

       In March 2023, the West Virginia University School of Medicine, who treated the child’s
leukemia several years earlier, issued a letter indicating that the child was thriving in petitioner’s
care and recommending that she remain in his custody. The letter detailed the fact that the mother
missed twelve of the child’s appointments between March 2019 and January 2021 while the child
was on cancer therapy and an additional five appointments between May 2021 and August 2021
while the child was off therapy. The child’s dental records showed that the child was dismissed
from the practice in October 2021, when the mother had custody, “due to broken appointments.”

        On March 24, 2023, the court held a final hearing and heard testimony from both parents.
Counsel for the mother sought a parenting plan with custody alternating between each parent every
other week. Counsel for petitioner sought a plan under which petitioner would exercise primary
custody while the mother would be allocated all but one weekend per month. The DHHR and the
guardian supported petitioner’s parenting plan, noting that the court had a precedent “that upon
conclusion of an abuse and neglect proceeding in which an Adult Respondent successfully
completes an improvement period, the non-abusing parent shall remain the primary residential
parent.” The DHHR noted that the child was “excelling in her current placement.” The court,
however, found that this “is an unusual case” and that the practice of awarding non-abusing parents
custody “does not make sense in this case” because the parents “have cooperated while the case
has been pending” and because the mother “was very involved in [K.J.’s] treatment for cancer.”
The court went on to conclude that “[i]t makes more sense for [K.J.] to attend [elementary school
in Roane County] because both parties reside in Roane County, West Virginia,” although the court
recognized that the child had been attending school in Jackson County where her stepmother works

       5
         The record shows that the child was diagnosed with cancer at age three, although at the
time of these proceedings she was in remission.
                                                  2
and her siblings attend school. Accordingly, the court directed that beginning in the 2023-2024
school year, the child would be enrolled in school in Roane County. The court accepted the
mother’s proposed parenting plan, finding that “[r]ecognition needs to be given that the child
belongs to both parents” and that, although petitioner and the stepmother “have been wonderful
parents, [K.J.] has a severe illness and the Adult Respondent Mother needs to be involved.” In
allocating custodial responsibility, the circuit court failed to discuss any of the required factors
from West Virginia Code §§ 48-9-206, -207, or -209, as more fully addressed below. It is from the
April 3, 2023, 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). Further, we have explained that

       [w]here it appears from the record that the process established by the Rules of
       Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings and related statutes for the
       disposition of cases involving children adjudicated to be abused or neglected has
       been substantially disregarded or frustrated, the . . . case [will be] remanded for
       compliance with that process.

Syl. Pt. 5, in part, In re Edward B., 210 W. Va. 621, 558 S.E.2d 620 (2001).

        Here, it is clear that vacation and remand are required because the court failed to consider
any of the statutorily required factors. We have explained as follows:

       A circuit court is obligated to apply the factors and considerations set forth in West
       Virginia Code §§ 48-9-206 (2018) and -207 (2001) in allocating custodial and
       decision-making responsibilities when reunifying children subject to abuse and
       neglect proceedings with parents . . . who are no longer cohabitating at the close of
       the proceedings. Where findings of abuse and/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.

Syl. Pt. 5, in part, In re T.M., 242 W. Va. 268, 835 S.E.2d 132 (2019). Without specifically
addressing all of the factors set forth in those statutes, we note that West Virginia Code § 48-9-
209(b) requires courts to “impose limits that are reasonably calculated to protect the child . . . from
harm” when a parent has abused or neglected a child. This is the third abuse and neglect proceeding
involving the mother and the second in which she has been adjudicated in regard to K.J.
Accordingly, we must vacate the court’s order and remand the matter with instructions for the
court to enter a new order directly addressing the relevant factors. 6

       6
         Petitioner raises a second assignment of error in which he alleges that the presiding judge
permitted her personal relationship with the mother to unduly influence the custodial allocation
below. It is unnecessary to address this argument, however, because petitioner acknowledges that
he filed a motion to recuse after the entry of the order on appeal. While petitioner has not included
this motion in the appendix record before this Court, it appears that it would more appropriately
                                                  3
        For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the circuit court’s April 3, 2023, order allocating
custodial responsibility and remand this matter to the circuit court for further proceedings as
directed by this memorandum decision. The court is further directed to undertake any additional
proceedings consistent with the West Virginia Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect
Proceedings and Chapter 49 of the West Virginia Code. The Clerk is directed to issue the mandate
contemporaneously herewith.

                                                        Vacated and Remanded, with directions.

ISSUED: October 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

be considered as a motion for disqualification under Rule 17.01 of the West Virginia Trial Court
Rules. On remand, the circuit court is directed to address this motion and comply with the
requirements of Rule 17.01 prior to the entry of a new final order.

                                               4