Court Opinion

ID: 9369079
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-07 20:12:14.062278+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:12.748264
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                                February 7, 2023
                             STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA                             EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK
                                                                                SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
                           SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS                                  OF WEST VIRGINIA

In re Z.B.-1 and Z.B.-2

No. 22-0495 (Kanawha County 21-JA-270 and 21-JA-571)

                              MEMORANDUM DECISION

       Petitioner Father R.B. 1 appeals the Circuit Court of Kanawha County’s June 1, 2022, order
terminating his parental rights to Z.B.-1 and Z.B.-2. 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 May of 2021, the DHHR filed a petition alleging that petitioner 3 abandoned Z.B.-1 by
moving to Georgia without setting up a guardianship or solidifying arrangements for the child’s
care. During the adjudicatory hearing in August of 2021, the DHHR introduced testimony
concerning petitioner’s abandonment. The court also considered in-camera testimony from Z.B.-
1. Ultimately, the court found that petitioner abandoned Z.B.-1 by relocating and leaving the child
without a legal guardian, any means of support, stable housing, or a plan for meeting his medical
and educational needs. The court then adjudicated petitioner as an abusing and neglecting parent
as to Z.B.-1 and ordered the DHHR investigate his infant sibling, Z.B.-2.

       The court ordered petitioner to submit to a parental fitness evaluation. Petitioner eventually
submitted to the evaluation in December of 2021, after having missed several appointments,
despite receiving accommodations for a remote evaluation. The evaluator would later testify to

       1
        Petitioner appears by counsel Carl J. Dascoli, Jr. The West Virginia Department of Health
and Human Resources (“DHHR”) appears by counsel Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and
Assistant Attorney General Andrew T. Waight. Sharon K. Childers appears as the child’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). Additionally, because the children share the same initials, we will refer
to them as Z.B.-1 and Z.B.-2, respectively.
       3
         Notably, the petition listed Z.B.-1’s father as “UNKNOWN/[R.B.].” However, the
amended petition filed in September of 2021 named R.B. as the “alleged father” of both Z.B.-1
and Z.B.-2, and the second amended petition filed in February of 2022 confirmed R.B. as the father
of both children, verifying paternity by the children’s birth certificates.
                                                 1
petitioner’s poor prognosis for improved parenting, noting his lack of motivation to engage in
services, his failure to acknowledge his shortcomings or the circumstances of abuse and neglect,
and his diagnosis of antisocial personality trait, which generally accompanies a lifestyle that would
foreseeably result in harm to a child.

        Thereafter, the DHHR filed two amended petitions that included allegations regarding
Z.B.-2 and additional disclosures from Z.B.-1. Specifically, the DHHR alleged that petitioner
physically abused both children, locked Z.B.-1 in his room for extended periods of time, threatened
further harm for disclosing the abuse, and exposed both children to domestic violence. In light of
these new allegations, the court conducted a second in-camera interview of Z.B.-1.

        The court concluded the adjudicatory hearing on the second amended petition in February
of 2022, at which the DHHR introduced testimony supportive of the new allegations. The court
also considered Z.B.-1’s recent in-camera interview and petitioner’s testimony. Although
petitioner again denied all allegations, the court found by clear and convincing evidence that
petitioner engaged in domestic violence in front of the children and was feared by Z.B.-1. The
court noted its prior adjudication of petitioner for abandoning Z.B.-1. Lastly, the court expressly
found Z.B.-1’s testimony more credible than petitioner’s, citing the child’s post-traumatic stress
disorder as “probative of real trauma inflicted by [petitioner] for which [petitioner] take[s] no
responsibility.” Accordingly, the court adjudicated petitioner as an abusing and neglectful parent
as to Z.B.-2.

        At the dispositional hearing in May of 2022, petitioner moved for an improvement period.
The court denied the motion, finding that petitioner did not qualify for an improvement period as
he provided no evidence indicative of his likelihood to fully participate. In support of the denial,
the court noted that petitioner chose not to participate in these proceedings for five months—and,
even then, only after the DHHR took custody of Z.B.-2. Further, petitioner did not accept
responsibility for his delayed participation or for the circumstances giving rise to the abuse and
neglect. Upon the testimony and evidence submitted, the court also found that there was no
reasonable likelihood that petitioner could correct the conditions of abuse and neglect and that
termination was in the children’s best interests. Accordingly, the circuit court terminated
petitioner’s parental rights to Z.B.-1 and Z.B.-2. 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 first contests his adjudication as an
abusing and neglectful parent by challenging the circuit court’s credibility determinations.
Petitioner bases his argument on certain aspects of the testimony, such as the fact that the children
were never treated for physical injuries and on his self-serving testimony in which he denied
physically abusing the children or engaging in domestic violence in their presence. However, the
record specifically reflects that petitioner lacked credibility and that Z.B.-1 was credible given that
the child suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, which was probative of real trauma inflicted
by petitioner. Importantly, we do not disturb credibility determinations on appeal. Michael D.C. v.

       4
         All parents’ parental rights have been terminated. The permanency plan for the children
is adoption in the current placement.
                                                  2
Wanda L.C., 201 W. Va. 381, 388, 497 S.E.2d 531, 538 (1997) (“A reviewing court cannot assess
witness credibility through a record. The trier of fact is uniquely situated to make such
determinations and this Court is not in a position to, and will not, second guess such
determinations.”). As such, petitioner cannot be entitled to relief in this regard.

        Petitioner further contests his adjudication as to Z.B.-2, asserting that there were no specific
allegations that he physically abused that child. However, petitioner cannot be entitled to relief as
this assertion is both inaccurate and irrelevant. First, the second amended petition does contain
allegations that petitioner physically abused Z.B.-2 and that Z.B.-1 witnessed this abuse. Even
more important, however, is the fact that the court never made a specific finding regarding physical
abuse and did not adjudicate petitioner on that ground. Instead, petitioner’s adjudication in regard
to both children was based, in relevant part, on exposing the children to domestic violence, an
issue that was alleged in the second amended petition and that was overwhelmingly established by
the evidence. Accordingly, his adjudication on that ground was proper, and we find no error in the
circuit court’s adjudication of petitioner as an abusing and neglectful parent in regard to both
children.

        Finally, petitioner alleges that, because adjudication was inappropriate, the circuit court
was barred from terminating his parental rights. However, as set forth above, we find no error in
adjudication. Therefore, petitioner’s argument necessarily fails, and he cannot be entitled to relief
in regard to termination of his parental rights. We further note that the circuit court made the
findings required to terminate parental rights under West Virginia Code § 49-4-604(c)(6), which
petitioner does not contest. Specifically, the circuit court found there was not a reasonable
likelihood that petitioner could correct the conditions of abuse and neglect and that termination
was in the children’s best interests given petitioner’s failure to accept responsibility for his actions
or for the circumstances giving rise to the abuse and neglect. As such, we find no error in the
termination of petitioner’s parental rights.

       For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the decision of the circuit court, and its June
1, 2022, order is hereby affirmed.

                                                                                             Affirmed.

ISSUED: February 7, 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