Court Opinion

ID: 9389602
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-25 20:11:47.070232+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:28.677905
License: Public Domain

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

In re C.W., K.V., and B.W.

No. 22-642 (Kanawha County 20-JA-458, 20-JA-459, and 21-JA-527)

                              MEMORANDUM DECISION

        Petitioner Mother E.V.1 appeals the Circuit Court of Kanawha County’s June 14, 2022,
order terminating her parental rights to C.W., K.V., and B.W.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 of 2020, the DHHR filed a petition alleging that petitioner abused illicit
substances while pregnant with C.W., which resulted in C.W. being born drug exposed. The
DHHR also alleged that petitioner chose to breastfeed C.W. despite her testing positive for
methamphetamine and tetrahydrocannabinol. At the preliminary hearing, the circuit court ratified
the removal of C.W. and K.V. and ordered the DHHR to provide services to petitioner, including
transportation services and supervised visitation with the children.

        The circuit court held an adjudicatory hearing in December of 2020, during which
petitioner testified and admitted to drug use during her pregnancy with C.W. Based upon this
evidence, the circuit court adjudicated petitioner as an abusing parent but granted her a post-
adjudicatory improvement period. The terms of petitioner’s improvement period required her to
attend parenting education and adult life skills classes, submit to a parental fitness and
psychological evaluation, and participate in supervised visitation with C.W. and K.V.

        In March of 2021, the court held a review hearing, and the DHHR presented evidence that
petitioner failed to complete an inpatient drug rehabilitation program and had tested positive for
several drug screens while pregnant with a third child, B.W. Later in March of 2021, the DHHR

       1
        Petitioner appears by counsel Sandra K. Bullman. The West Virginia Department of
Health and Human Resources (“DHHR”) appears by counsel Attorney General Patrick Morrisey
and Assistant Attorney General Andrew T. Waight. Matthew Smith 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
filed an amended petition alleging that petitioner allowed K.V.’s teeth to rot and that C.W.’s father
abused drugs while living with petitioner and the children. Thereafter, the court held an
adjudicatory hearing on the amended petition, wherein K.V.’s father agreed to place K.V. in a
guardianship with the maternal grandparents. Thereafter, K.V.’s father was dismissed from the
action, and the court adjudicated C.W.’s father as an abusing parent.

        The DHHR filed a second amended petition in September of 2021, alleging that petitioner
admitted to abusing methamphetamine while pregnant with B.W. The circuit court held a second
adjudicatory hearing in October of 2021, during which the DHHR presented evidence that
petitioner used methamphetamine while pregnant with B.W., failed to enroll into an inpatient drug
rehabilitation program, and failed to comply with regular random drug screening. The court
adjudicated petitioner and B.W.’s father as abusing parents based on their substance abuse. In
November of 2021, petitioner filed a motion for a second post-adjudicatory improvement period.3

         The circuit court held a final dispositional hearing in June of 2022, during which petitioner
failed to appear but counsel appeared on her behalf. The DHHR worker testified that petitioner
failed to comply with drug screening and was caught using another person’s urine sample to defeat
a drug screen. The worker stated that the DHHR then required mouth swabs for drug screens and
that petitioner ceased drug screening in March of 2021. She elaborated that the few drug screens
petitioner submitted to in March of 2021 were positive for methamphetamine and that petitioner
did not reply to the worker’s offer of reunification services. The guardian moved for termination
of petitioner’s parental rights, pointing to the fact that the case had been ongoing since September
of 2020 and petitioner had given birth to a second drug exposed infant. Ultimately, the court denied
petitioner’s motion for an additional improvement period, finding that petitioner had made no
progress in addressing the issues that led to the petition’s filing. The court concluded that there
was no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of neglect and abuse could be substantially
corrected in the near future. The court also found that termination of petitioner’s parental rights
was necessary for the children’s welfare and was the least restrictive dispositional alternative. The
circuit court terminated petitioner’s parental rights by its June 14, 2022, order. Petitioner now
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. See Syl. Pt. 1, In
re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011). Petitioner first argues that the circuit court
erred in denying her motion for a second post-adjudicatory improvement period. However,
petitioner concedes in her brief that she only initially complied with offered services. Petitioner
asserts that she “wanted” to enroll into drug treatment yet failed to do so for over eighteen months.
Indeed, another improvement period was unwarranted considering petitioner’s nonparticipation in
her previous improvement period and the length of time the proceedings had been pending. See
W. Va. Code § 49-4-610(9) (“no combination of any improvement periods or extensions thereto

       3
       For reasons not apparent from the record, dispositional hearings set for December of 2021,
March of 2022, and April of 2022 were continued.
       4
         C.W. and B.W.’s father’s parental rights were terminated below. C.W. and B.W.’s
permanency plan is adoption together by the maternal grandmother. K.V. has been reunified with
his father.
                                                  2
may cause a child to be in foster care more than fifteen months of the most recent twenty-two
months, unless the court finds compelling circumstances by clear and convincing evidence that it
is in the child’s best interests to extend the time limits”). Because petitioner failed to follow
through with services during her first improvement period, including failing to address her drug
addiction in any fashion, we find no error in the circuit court’s denial of a second improvement
period after the birth of B.W.

        Further, petitioner argues that the circuit court erred in terminating her parental rights rather
than imposing a less-restrictive dispositional alternative such as permanent guardianship with the
maternal grandparents. However, petitioner does not challenge the circuit court’s finding that there
was no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of neglect or abuse could be substantially
corrected in the near future. See W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(c)(6) (authorizing the termination of a
parent’s parental rights upon such findings). Petitioner failed to comply with her case plan, and
there was no evidence presented that petitioner attempted to correct her parenting deficiencies and
substance addiction during the proceedings. As such, “[t]ermination of parental rights . . . may be
employed without the use of intervening less restrictive alternatives when it is found that there is
no reasonable likelihood . . . that the conditions of neglect or abuse can be substantially corrected.”
Syl. Pt. 5, In re Kristin Y., 227 W. Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (2011). As the circuit court’s findings
are fully supported by the record, we find no error in the termination of petitioner’s parental rights
rather than the imposition of a less-restrictive dispositional alternative.

       For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the decision of the circuit court, and its June
14, 2022, order is hereby affirmed.

                                                                                              Affirmed.

ISSUED: April 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

                                                   3