Court Opinion

ID: 9893069
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-25 19:14:12.340466+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:52:46.779463
License: Public Domain

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

                            SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS                                   OF WEST VIRGINIA

In re M.B., L.B., and K.B.-1

No. 23-395 (Kanawha County 22-JA-337, 22-JA-338, and 22-JA-339)

                               MEMORANDUM DECISION

        Petitioner Father K.B.-2 1 appeals the Circuit Court of Kanawha County’s May 30, 2023,
order terminating his parental rights to M.B., L.B., and K.B.-1. 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 August 2022, the DHHR filed a petition alleging that petitioner had a history of Child
Protective Services (“CPS”) involvement. Specifically, the DHHR alleged that he assaulted M.B.’s
mother and one of her other children 3 on February 8, 2020, at which time the child he assaulted
was fifteen months old. According to the DHHR, petitioner “had thrown [the] 15-month-old [child]
across the room during a domestic dispute.” As a result of the incident, petitioner pled guilty to
felony strangulation and two misdemeanor counts of battery. The DHHR further alleged that
petitioner had a history of domestic violence cases in Kanawha County in which he was a
respondent. Based on this extensive history of domestic violence, the DHHR alleged that petitioner
was incapable of appropriately caring for his three biological children, M.B., L.B., and K.B.-1. 4

       1
         Petitioner appears by counsel Benjamin Freeman. The West Virginia Department of
Health and Human Resources (“DHHR”) appears by counsel Attorney General Patrick Morrisey
and Assistant Attorney General Katherine A. Campbell. Counsel Sharon K. Childers 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). Additionally, because one child and petitioner share the same initials, we
refer to them as K.B.-1 and K.B.-2, respectively.
       3
         The child petitioner assaulted is not at issue in this appeal and was, instead, the subject of
a prior abuse and neglect proceeding.
       4
         The DHHR later amended the petition to include an additional child, who is not at issue
in this appeal, and that child’s unknown father.

                                                  1
        In September 2022, the court held a preliminary hearing. Petitioner failed to appear but
was represented by counsel. During the hearing, a CPS investigator testified to a meeting with
petitioner. According to this witness, petitioner “was combative [and] uncooperative.”

        In February 2023, the court held an adjudicatory hearing. At that time, the DHHR indicated
that petitioner, who did not appear for the hearing but was represented by counsel, was
incarcerated. Based on the evidence, the court found that petitioner had an “extensive and chronic
history of domestic violence,” including an incident in which he physically abused a child and
three domestic violence proceedings in which petitioner was a respondent. The court further
concluded that this history “render[ed] him an unfit caregiver” and that he was an abusing and
neglecting parent to M.B., L.B., and K.B.-1.

        In May 2023, the court held a dispositional hearing. Petitioner, who remained incarcerated,
appeared by video and was represented by counsel. The DHHR presented testimony from a CPS
worker, who recommended termination of petitioner’s parental rights based on his extensive
history of violence and past child endangerment. Petitioner declined to testify. Ultimately, the
court found that petitioner failed to participate in the proceedings until the final dispositional
hearing, despite notice of all past hearings. The court also found that petitioner “has demonstrated
no likelihood of participating in remedial services if the same were offered on the basis of his lack
of participation in these proceedings, and lack of acknowledgement of any parenting deficiencies.”
Further, the court concluded that the DHHR could not make reasonable efforts to afford petitioner
remedial services “by virtue of his failure to participate in these proceedings even when he was
not incarcerated.” Finally, the court found that termination of petitioner’s parental rights was in
the children’s best interests and necessary to establish permanency for them. Accordingly, the
court terminated petitioner’s parental rights to the children. 5 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 court
erred in terminating his parental rights because he alleges that he could have corrected the
conditions of abuse and neglect. In advancing this position, however, petitioner relies on
arguments that have no basis in the record. For example, petitioner appears to assert that, because
the mother of M.B. is deceased, his history of domestic violence has somehow been remedied.
Further, he argues that the past instances of domestic violence upon which the circuit court relied
were remote and, therefore, irrelevant to disposition. 6 These arguments are simply unavailing, as

       5
        M.B.’s mother is deceased, and the permanency plan for that child is adoption in the
current placement. The permanency plan for L.B. and K.B.-1 is to remain with their nonabusing
mother.
       6
         In support of his assignment of error concerning termination of his parental rights,
petitioner asserts, in passing, that “the DHHR did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that
domestic violence occurred at or near the time of the filing of the petitions which caused his
children to be abused and neglected.” It appears that petitioner may be attempting to call into
question his adjudication under West Virginia Code § 49-4-601. However, petitioner failed to set
                                                   2
petitioner’s history of extreme domestic violence and physical abuse of a child speaks directly to
the conditions of abuse and neglect at issue, and the death of one of his prior victims is insufficient
to establish that these conditions have been remedied.

        Petitioner also “believes that he was not given an opportunity to remedy these parenting
deficiencies due to his incarceration,” but ignores the fact that the court explicitly found that he
failed to take the meager step of even appearing for hearings at times he was not incarcerated and
that his failure to participate in the proceedings precluded the offering of remedial services. As the
record shows, petitioner’s incarceration had no bearing on his ability to demonstrate a likelihood
of complying with services or the circuit court’s ultimate determination that there was no
reasonable likelihood that petitioner could substantially correct the conditions of abuse and
neglect. Instead, as the circuit court explained, it based this finding on petitioner’s almost total lack
of participation in the proceedings and his refusal to acknowledge any parenting deficiencies. As
we have explained, “[f]ailure 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.” In re Timber M., 231 W. Va. 44, 55, 743
S.E.2d 352, 363 (2013) (citation omitted). Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to no relief in this
regard.

         Ultimately, we find no error in the circuit court’s termination of petitioner’s parental rights.
Contrary to his arguments on appeal, the circuit court had ample evidence upon which to base the
findings necessary for termination. See W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(c)(6) (permitting circuit court to
terminate parental rights upon finding no reasonable likelihood conditions of abuse and neglect
can be substantially corrected in the near future and when necessary for child’s welfare). Further,
petitioner’s argument that the court failed to impose the least restrictive dispositional alternative
is without merit, as he simply cites to the various alternatives set forth in West Virginia Code §
49-4-604(c) but fails to explain why termination was not appropriate, other than to baldly assert
that it “was not warranted.” As set forth above, the court found, based on petitioner’s almost total
failure to participate, that there was no reasonable likelihood that he could substantially correct the
conditions of abuse and neglect. This is in keeping with West Virginia Code § 49-4-604(d)(2),
which provides that such circumstances exist when a parent has “willfully refused or [is] presently
unwilling to cooperate in the development of a reasonable family case plan designed to lead to the
child’s return to their care, custody and control.” Further, we have explained that termination of
parental rights “without the use of intervening less restrictive alternatives” is appropriate upon this
finding. Syl. Pt. 5, in part, In re Kristin Y., 227 W. Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (2011). Finally,
petitioner’s assertion that the court could have permitted the children to be placed in legal
guardianships ignores this Court’s stated preference for adoption. See Syl. Pt. 2, State v. Michael
M., 202 W. Va. 350, 504 S.E.2d 177 (1998).

forth an assignment of error challenging his adjudication or otherwise present an argument to this
effect. Accordingly, we refuse to address any attempt to call petitioner’s adjudication into question.
See State v. Larry A.H., 230 W. Va. 709, 716, 742 S.E.2d 125, 132 (2013) (citations omitted)
(“Although we liberally construe briefs in determining issues presented for review, issues . . .
mentioned only in passing but . . . not supported with pertinent authority, are not considered on
appeal.”).
                                                   3
       For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the decision of the circuit court, and its May
30, 2023, 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