Court Opinion

ID: 9840915
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-20 16:14:48.791862+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:29:53.733692
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                              September 20, 2023
                                                                                 EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK

                             STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA                              SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                      OF WEST VIRGINIA
                           SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

In re A.R. and Z.C.

No. 22-708 (Roane County 21-JA-54 and 21-JA-55)

                               MEMORANDUM DECISION

        Petitioner Mother J.R. 1 appeals the Circuit Court of Roane County’s August 25, 2022,
order terminating her parental rights to A.R. and Z.C. 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 September 2021, the DHHR filed a petition alleging that petitioner physically abused
the children by striking them and that she had been convicted of domestic assault for these actions
in August 2021. The DHHR alleged that the children suffered emotional trauma from the physical
abuse and that petitioner had prior convictions for domestic assaults in 2018 and 2019. At the time
of the preliminary hearing, petitioner was incarcerated for the August 2021 domestic assault
conviction.

         The circuit court held a contested adjudicatory hearing in March 2022, wherein petitioner
testified that she struck then-eleven-year-old Z.C. in the presence of then fifteen-year-old A.R.,
but further stated that the children started the fight as they have significant behavioral problems.
Petitioner stated that she had not been the children’s sole caretaker since the children briefly lived
with her in 2016. Petitioner testified that during her various incarcerations since 2009, she attended
parenting classes and participated in substance abuse treatment courses. The DHHR presented the
testimony of the maternal grandmother, with whom the children have lived since 2011. The
grandmother stated that she allowed petitioner to stay in the home with the children on many
occasions but that petitioner inevitably left after a few months to abuse drugs and alcohol. She
stated that the children exhibited excellent behaviors and planned to attend college after graduating
high school. Based on this evidence, the circuit court adjudicated petitioner as an abusing parent.

       1
        Petitioner appears by counsel Mark Plants. The West Virginia Department of Health and
Human Resources (“DHHR”) appears by counsel Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and Assistant
Attorney General Katica Ribel. Counsel Leslie L. Maze 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
        Petitioner participated in a forensic psychological evaluation in late July 2021. During her
evaluation, petitioner denied having prior Child Protective Services (“CPS”) interventions, but the
evaluator noted that documents showed interventions in 2018, 2019, and 2021. Petitioner stated
that she believed the maternal grandparents were abusing A.R. and Z.C., that the maternal
grandparents abused her as a child, and that the children should not be placed with the maternal
grandparents. Yet, petitioner explained that she consented to the maternal grandmother’s
guardianship of the children due to her first incarceration in 2010. She described at least eight prior
arrests and three prior incarcerations due to criminal convictions. Petitioner reported that she
previously abused pain medications, which resulted in her failure to finish high school and Z.C.
being born drug affected. When asked about the current petition’s allegations of domestic violence,
petitioner stated that “[i]t don’t look very good on my parenting.” She disagreed that the children
were lawfully removed by CPS and stated that she was suing CPS. Petitioner generally denied
having parental shortcomings and blamed others for her “past and current failures.” The evaluator
concluded that petitioner “did not accept meaningful responsibility for her failures as a parent,”
and was more focused on preventing the children’s placement with the maternal grandparents than
improving her ability to parent the children. The evaluator’s prognosis for petitioner’s ability to
improve her parenting ability within a reasonable period was “extremely poor” based on several
factors, including but not limited to petitioner’s 1) significant history of incarcerations, 2) absence
of gainful employment, 3) lack of stable housing, 4) abdication of parenting responsibilities to
others, and 5) likely noncompliance with services without oversight.

        The circuit court held the final dispositional hearing in July 2022, at which it took judicial
notice of the testimony presented at the adjudicatory hearing. The court noted the findings
contained in petitioner’s forensic psychological evaluation and determined that any improvement
was unlikely, especially when considering petitioner’s failure to address her problems despite
receiving “over a decade of services and counseling.” Critically, the court found that petitioner
had not accepted meaningful responsibility for her actions that led to the filing of the petition. As
such, the court denied petitioner’s motion for an improvement period. Ultimately, the court
concluded that there was no reasonable likelihood that petitioner could correct the conditions of
abuse and neglect in the near future and that termination was necessary for the children’s best
interests. Accordingly, the circuit court terminated petitioner’s parental rights to A.R. and Z.C. 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 the circuit
court erred in denying her motion for an improvement period “in the absence of compelling
circumstances to justify the denial.” 4 Upon our review, we find no error.

       3
         The respective fathers’ parental rights were terminated below. The permanency plan for
the children is adoption by the maternal grandmother.
       4
           Petitioner raises no assignment of error concerning the termination of her parental rights.

                                                   2
        Contrary to petitioner’s argument, there is no “compelling circumstances” standard for the
granting of an improvement period. 5 Rather, the burden of proof lies with the parent, under West
Virginia Code § 49-4-610, to first demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that they are
likely to fully participate in the terms of an improvement period. Here, the record shows that
petitioner failed to acknowledge parental shortcomings, let alone her physical and mental abuse of
the children that led to the filing of the petition. Petitioner minimized the domestic violence in the
home and blamed others for her deficiencies. As we have explained,

       [i]n order to remedy the abuse and/or neglect problem, the problem must first be
       acknowledged. Failure to acknowledge the existence of the problem, i.e., the truth
       of the basic allegation pertaining to the alleged abuse and neglect or the perpetrator
       of said abuse and neglect, results in making the problem untreatable and in making
       an improvement period an exercise in futility at the child[ren]’s expense.

In re Timber M., 231 W. Va. 44, 55, 743 S.E.2d 352, 363 (2013) (citation omitted). Because
petitioner failed to acknowledge the abuse and neglect at issue, we find no error in the denial of
her motion for an improvement period. See In re Tonjia M., 212 W. Va. 443, 448, 573 S.E.2d 354,
359 (2002) (permitting a circuit court discretion to deny an improvement period when no
improvement is likely).

      For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the decision of the circuit court, and its
August 25, 2022, order is hereby affirmed.

                                                                                           Affirmed.

ISSUED: September 20, 2023

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Justice Elizabeth D. Walker
Justice Tim Armstead
Justice John A. Hutchison
Justice William R. Wooton
Justice C. Haley Bunn

       5
        Syllabus Point 2 of State ex rel. W. Va. Dep’t of Hum. Servs. v. Cheryl M., 177 W. Va.
688, 356 S.E.2d 181, 181 (1987), held that “W.[]Va.[]Code [§] 49–6–2(b) (1984), permits a parent
to move the court for an improvement period which shall be allowed unless the court finds
compelling circumstances to justify a denial.” However, this holding was superseded by statute,
West Virginia Code § 49-4-610.

                                                  3