Court Opinion

ID: 9391608
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-02 18:12:18.717341+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:40.944451
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                                   May 2, 2023
                                                                                EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK
                                                                                SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
                             STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA                                  OF WEST VIRGINIA

                           SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

In Re: The Adoption of M.C.
No. 22-0131 (Upshur County No. 21-A-18)

                              MEMORANDUM DECISION

        Petitioner J.C.1 is the biological father of minor child M.C. Respondent D.C. is the child’s
mother, and respondent T.C. is the mother’s husband. By order entered on February 1, 2022, the
Circuit Court of Upshur County entered an order allowing T.C. to adopt the child. Petitioner
appeals that order.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.

        On September 21, 2021, the mother and her husband filed a petition for adoption in the
circuit court claiming that petitioner had abandoned the child and seeking to allow the husband to
adopt the child. Petitioner contested the adoption. The evidence presented to the circuit court
showed that the child was born in 2017 and that petitioner and the mother resided together until
they separated approximately seven months later. Following their separation, petitioner and the
mother communicated solely through Facebook Messenger regarding the child. For brief periods
of time, the mother either blocked petitioner’s messages or did not answer them. However, the
mother indicated that she exchanged seventeen messages with petitioner in 2019 regarding the
child, but only four messages in 2020 regarding the child. During 2019 and 2020, petitioner visited
with the child approximately ten times. Petitioner sent the last message seeking visitation with the
child on September 5, 2019. The last message petitioner sent to the mother at all was on July 20,
2020. No communications of any kind were exchanged between the mother and petitioner
thereafter. When respondents filed their petition for adoption on September 21, 2021, it had been
more than two years since petitioner had last asked to visit with the child. In his testimony before
the circuit court, petitioner admitted that he did not “do anything else to try to get ahold of (the
mother) or anything of that nature” after July 20, 2020.

       The evidence of record indicates that, after petitioner’s last contact on July 20, 2020, the
mother did nothing to prevent him from contacting the child. She never directed petitioner to cease
messaging her and never secreted the child away from him. Petitioner knew where the child lived

       1
           Because this case involves children and sensitive matters, we follow our practice of using
initials to refer to the children and the parties. See W. Va. R. App. P. 40(e).
       2
       Petitioner is represented by Jared S. Frame, and respondents are represented by Daya
Masada Wright.

                                                 1
and had seen the child in the front yard of the mother’s home when he drove by. Also, after July
20, 2020, petitioner made no phone calls and sent no letters, cards, e-mails, or any other forms of
communication to the mother or the child. There was no evidence petitioner was financially or
physically unable to visit the child, or that he was prevented from visiting the child. Petitioner
never paid any financial support to the mother for the child nor did he seek relief from a family
court to compel the mother to allow him visitation.

        Below, petitioner testified that the mother’s husband played an important part in his child’s
life and that he did not want to take that away from the child. He stated that he merely wanted the
opportunity to share in his child’s life, to teach the child, to enjoy the outdoors with the child, and
to take the child hunting.

        In its February 1, 2022, order, the circuit court found as follows: Petitioner last had contact
with the child on July 5, 2019; petitioner had failed to assert his parental rights for over two years
before respondents filed the petition for adoption; petitioner did not support the child within his
means; petitioner provided no gifts or monies to the child after 2019; and petitioner did not visit
or otherwise communicate with the child even though he knew where the child resided, was
physically and financially able to visit the child, and was not prevented from doing so for an
uninterrupted period greater than six months immediately preceding the filing of the petition for
adoption. Accordingly, the circuit court concluded petitioner had legally “abandoned” the child as
defined by West Virginia Code § 48-22-306. The circuit court then granted respondents’ petition,
allowing the husband to adopt the child.

        Petitioner now appeals and argues that the circuit court erred when it concluded that
petitioner had abandoned the child. When asked to review a circuit court’s order granting a petition
for adoption following a finding of parental abandonment, we apply the following two-pronged
deferential standard of review:

               We review the final order and the ultimate disposition under an abuse of
       discretion standard, and we review the circuit court’s underlying factual findings
       under a clearly erroneous standard. Questions of law are subject to a de
       novo review.

In re Adoption of H.G., 246 W. Va. 105, 110, 866 S.E.2d 170, 175 (2021) (quoting Syl. Pt.
2, Walker v. W. Va. Ethics Comm’n, 201 W. Va. 108, 492 S.E.2d 167 (1997)).

       West Virginia Code § 48-22-306(a) establishes a legal presumption for abandonment:

              (a) Abandonment of a child over the age of six months shall be presumed
       when the birth parent:

               (1) Fails to financially support the child within the means of the birth parent;
       and

              (2) Fails to visit or otherwise communicate with the child when he or she
       knows where the child resides, is physically and financially able to do so and is not
       prevented from doing so by the person or authorized agency having the care or

                                                  2
       custody of the child: Provided, That such failure to act continues uninterrupted for
       a period of six months immediately preceding the filing of the adoption petition.

West Virginia Code § 48-22-306(d) goes on to provide that a “birth parent shall have the
opportunity to demonstrate to the court the existence of compelling circumstances preventing said
parent from supporting, visiting or otherwise communicating with the child[.]”

        Petitioner makes two arguments on appeal. First, petitioner contends that he provided
support for the child “within his means.” Petitioner argues that despite being mostly unemployed
between April of 2018 and the Summer of 2021, he bought “multiple things” for the child and at
least one gift was delivered to the child’s maternal grandmother, while others were still in his
possession as he never had a chance to give them to the child’s mother. Petitioner acknowledges,
however, that he never paid any direct financial support to the mother for the child’s expenses and
that holding gifts in his own possession does nothing to benefit the child. On this record we find
no error in the circuit court’s determination that petitioner failed to financially support the child
within his means.

        Petitioner next argues, without support or explanation, that the mother prevented him from
visiting the child. Petitioner asserts that, if he could do it over, he would file an action in family
court to establish a parenting plan. However, he claims he just did not have the money to bring an
action, he did not understand the process, and he did not want to cause strife. The record, however,
belies petitioner’s argument as petitioner admits that, in the spring of 2018, he obtained a packet
containing forms to file a pro se family court petition to allocate custodial responsibility.
Moreover, in the six months before respondents filed their adoption petition, petitioner knew where
the child resided, was physically and financially able to visit the child, was not prevented from
doing so, and yet he never visited the child. On this record, we find no error in the circuit court’s
determination that petitioner abandoned the child. Accordingly, we affirm the order granting the
respondents’ petition for adoption.

                                                                                           Affirmed.

ISSUED: May 2, 2023

CONCURRED IN BY:

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

                                                  3