Court Opinion

ID: 9893063
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-25 19:14:08.992111+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:52:46.016088
License: Public Domain

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

In re T.D., R.D., and J.M.

No. 22-880 (Harrison County 21-JA-35-2, 21-JA-36-2, and 22-JA-113-2)

                              MEMORANDUM DECISION

        Petitioner Mother V.W. 1 appeals the Circuit Court of Harrison County’s October 31, 2022,
order terminating her parental rights to the children, T.D., R.D., and J.M. 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 February 2021, the DHHR filed a petition regarding the children T.D. and R.D. alleging
that petitioner and the children’s father abused alcohol and engaged in domestic violence in the
presence of the children. The petition additionally outlined the parents’ Child Protective Services
(“CPS”) history, stating that they were involved with CPS in two other states in the years leading
up to the current matter. The events giving rise to the instant petition began in February 2021,
when there was a domestic violence altercation between the parents. Police reported that when
they arrived, petitioner appeared extremely intoxicated. Police further stated that they had been
called to the parents’ residence for domestic violence multiple times and observed their
intoxication. Both parents were adjudicated as abusive and neglectful based upon the evidence
presented at a hearing held in March 2021.

       The parents were granted an improvement period in April 2021, which was extended by
agreed order in September 2021. A second improvement period was granted in February 2022.
The children were returned to the parents’ care for a trial reunification in April 2022. However,

       1
        Petitioner appears by counsel Julie Garvin. The West Virginia Department of Health and
Human Resources (“DHHR”) appears by counsel Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and Assistant
Attorney General Katica Ribel. Counsel Dreama Sinkkanen 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).
                                                 1
shortly thereafter, the DHHR filed an amendment to the petition in June 2022, adding the child
J.M. 3 and alleging further domestic violence and alcohol-related incidents had occurred.

        A second adjudicatory hearing was held in August 2022 regarding the amendment to the
petition. The court heard testimony from the parents, two police officers, and a CPS worker. Based
on the evidence presented, the court found that in May 2022, petitioner engaged in a domestic
violence event with the father, after which the father drove drunk with R.D. in the vehicle. Neither
parent advised CPS of this. Upon learning of the occurrence, CPS arranged for petitioner and the
children to stay in a domestic violence shelter and petitioner agreed to have no contact with the
father. However, in June 2022, petitioner left the shelter and resumed cohabitating with the father
after bailing him out of jail for a drunk driving charge. When asked by CPS, petitioner initially
denied bailing the father out of jail; however, she admitted doing so when confronted with the bail
bondsman’s paperwork bearing her signature. During this conversation with CPS, petitioner said,
“I’m not doing this anymore, just come and get them,” referring to the children. When CPS arrived
to retrieve the children, petitioner was heard instructing the children, “don’t tell them [CPS]
anything.” At the conclusion of the adjudicatory hearing, the court found that petitioner had not
been honest with the DHHR or the court in these proceedings, that the parents continued to engage
in domestic violence in the presence of the children, and that petitioner failed to protect the
children. Therefore, the court found all three children to be abused and neglected, and adjudicated
petitioner as an abusing and neglecting parent. Petitioner filed an additional motion for an
improvement period following this hearing.

        The court proceeded to disposition in October 2022, at which time the DHHR and guardian
supported termination of petitioner’s parental rights. The court heard testimony from the parents,
a CPS worker, and a family services coordinator. Based on the evidence presented, the court found
that, despite participating in some services offered by the DHHR, petitioner failed to make
substantial improvements. Specifically, the court noted that petitioner missed drug screens; did not
participate in domestic violence counseling; and continued to reside with the father, by which she
minimized the issue of domestic violence and its effects on the children. Therefore, the court found
that there was no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of neglect or abuse could be
substantially corrected in the near future and it was necessary for the welfare of the children to
terminate petitioner’s parental rights. It is from the dispositional order that petitioner appeals. 4

        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 failing to
grant the additional improvement period and proceeding to terminate her parental rights rather than
employing a less restrictive dispositional alternative. We disagree and find no error in the circuit
court’s order.

       3
        J.M.’s parents are petitioner and a different father, A.M., who is deceased. Upon A.M.’s
passing, the mother brought J.M. to the home she shared with the father of T.D. and R.D. When
using “father” in this MD, we refer to B.D., the father of T.D. and R.D.
       4
        The father’s parental rights to T.D. and R.D., and his custodial rights to J.M. were also
terminated. The permanency plan for the children is adoption by foster placement.
                                                  2
         Under West Virginia Code § 49-4-610(3)(D), in order to obtain an additional improvement
period, petitioner was required to “demonstrate[] that since the initial improvement period, . . .
[she] experienced a substantial change in circumstances” and “that due to that change in
circumstances . . . [she was] likely to fully participate in a further improvement period.” The record
illustrates that petitioner simply could not meet this burden. Petitioner was previously granted two
improvement periods with an extension and, although she initially appeared to make some
improvement, the ongoing domestic violence in the home and failure to prioritize protection of the
children ultimately demonstrated no substantial change in circumstances. In fact, the evidence
shows the issues escalated once the children were returned to petitioner’s care for a trial
reunification, indicating that petitioner clearly failed to benefit from services. Based upon this
evidence, we find no error in the denial of petitioner’s motion for an additional improvement
period, as the circuit court had discretion to deny an improvement period when no improvement
was likely. In re Tonjia M., 212 W. Va. 443, 448, 573 S.E.2d 354, 359 (2002); see also State ex
rel. Amy M. v. Kaufman, 196 W. Va. 251, 260, 470 S.E.2d 205, 214 (1996) (“the trial court must
accept the fact that the statutory limits on improvement periods (as well as our case law limiting
the right to improvement periods) dictate that there comes a time for decision, because a child
deserves resolution and permanency.”).

       We further find no error in the court’s decision to terminate petitioner’s parental rights
without employing a less restrictive dispositional alternative under West Virginia Code § 49-4-
604(b). We have held as follows:

               “Termination of parental rights, the most drastic remedy under the statutory
       provision covering the disposition of neglected children, [West Virginia Code § 49-
       4-604] . . . may be employed without the use of intervening less restrictive
       alternatives when it is found that there is no reasonable likelihood under [West
       Virginia Code § 49-4-604(d)] . . . that conditions of neglect or abuse can be
       substantially corrected.” Syllabus point 2, In re R.J.M., 164 W.Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d
       114 (1980).

Syl. Pt. 5, In re Kristin Y., 227 W. Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (2011). The court found that petitioner
continued to engage in the same pattern of behavior which threatened the health, safety, and
welfare of the children despite participating in some services. As we have explained, “the level of
a parent’s compliance with the terms and conditions of an improvement period is just one factor
to be considered. The controlling standard that governs any dispositional decision remains the best
interests of the child.” Syl. Pt. 4, in part, In re B.H., 233 W. Va. 57, 754 S.E.2d 743 (2014).
Petitioner’s minimal compliance with improvement period terms is insufficient to demonstrate
error and the persisting issues once the children were placed back in the home prove termination
was in the children’s best interests. Based on the weight of the evidence, the court properly found
that there was no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of neglect or abuse could be
substantially corrected in the near future and that termination was necessary for the welfare of the
children. Because the court had ample evidence upon which to base these findings, we conclude
that it did not err. See W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(c)(6) (permitting circuit court to terminate parental
rights upon finding no reasonable likelihood conditions of neglect can be substantially corrected
in the near future and when necessary for the child’s welfare).

                                                  3
      For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the decision of the circuit court, and its
October 31, 2022, order is hereby affirmed.

                                                                                     Affirmed.

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

                                              4