Court Opinion

ID: 9840899
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-20 16:14:40.338542+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:29:53.057542
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 M.C. and H.G.

No. 22-696 (Cabell County 20-JA-200 and 20-JA-201)

                               MEMORANDUM DECISION

       Petitioner Mother/Grandmother, L.C., 1 appeals the Circuit Court of Cabell County’s
August 11, 2022, order terminating her parental rights to her daughter, M.C., and terminating her
guardianship rights 2 to her grandson, H.G. 3 Upon our review, we determine that oral argument is
unnecessary and that a memorandum decision vacating and remanding the circuit court’s order is
appropriate, in accordance with the “limited circumstances” requirement of Rule 21(d) of the West
Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure.

        The proceedings below were initiated in November 2020, when the DHHR filed a petition
alleging that petitioner had been arrested for drug charges 4 and placed the children in a home with
their former foster parents, D.L. and B.L. 5 The petition alleged that petitioner has a history of drug
use and neglected the children by actively using drugs. Petitioner stipulated to the allegations in
the petition and, following an adjudicatory hearing in February 2021, the circuit court found that
petitioner abused and neglected the children.

       1
        Petitioner appears by counsel, Steven T. Cook. The West Virginia Department of Health
and Human Resources (“DHHR”) appears by counsel, Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and
Assistant Attorney General Andrew T. Waight. Counsel Cathy L. Greiner appears as the children’s
guardian ad litem (“guardian”).
       2
       Prior to initiation of the proceedings below, petitioner acquired guardianship of her
grandson, H.G.
       3
       We use initials where necessary to protect the identities of those involved in this case. See
W. Va. R. App. P. 40(e).
       4
      Petitioner was in jail at the time the DHHR filed its petition, and she was released in
December 2020.
       5
         The children had been placed in the foster home on two prior occasions as a result of
petitioner’s drug use.

                                                  1
        In August 2021, counsel for petitioner filed a motion for visitation and requested an
improvement period. Although the circuit court did not rule on either of petitioner’s requests,
petitioner did have visitation with the children.

        The circuit court proceeded to disposition and conducted several hearings, including an in
camera interview with the children, culminating in a final hearing in June 2022. The evidence
indicated that, despite a few setbacks, petitioner had not tested positive for drugs for approximately
six months prior to disposition. The circuit court’s in camera interview with the children revealed
that the children did not wish to be returned to petitioner’s custody but that they wished to be
allowed visits with petitioner. The circuit court ultimately terminated petitioner’s parental rights.
Neither the transcripts from the dispositional hearings nor the final dispositional order indicate that
the circuit court explicitly found that there is no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of neglect
or abuse can be substantially corrected in the near future, or provided factual findings to support
such a conclusion. It is from the dispositional order that petitioner appeals. 6

        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). Further, we have explained that

       [w]here it appears from the record that the process established by the Rules of
       Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings and related statutes for the
       disposition of cases involving children adjudicated to be abused or neglected has
       been substantially disregarded or frustrated, the . . . case [will be] remanded for
       compliance with that process.

Syl. Pt. 5, in part, In re Edward B., 210 W. Va. 621, 558 S.E.2d 620 (2001).

        Petitioner asserts two assignments of error on appeal: first, that the circuit court erred in
terminating her parental and guardianship rights and, second, that the circuit court erred in failing
to grant her an improvement period. Upon our review, we are unable to properly address
petitioner’s first assignment of error regarding the termination of her parental and guardianship
rights because the dispositional order does not include requisite findings. We are further unable to
address petitioner’s second assignment of error concerning the denial of her motion for an
improvement period because the record does not reveal any ruling by the circuit court on this
motion.

       In discussing the sufficiency of dispositional orders in abuse and neglect proceedings, we
previously explained that,

       6
        According to the DHHR, M.C.’s father’s custodial rights were terminated during a prior
proceeding and neither of H.G.’s parents exercised custody prior to the initiation of these
proceedings. The DHHR further indicates that it will file an amended petition in regard to these
parents in order to effectuate the children’s permanency plan of adoption together in the current
placement.
                                                   2
        [p]rocedurally, these various directives [set forth in the Rules of Procedure for
        Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings and related statutes] also provide the
        necessary framework for appellate review of a circuit court’s action. Where a lower
        court has not shown compliance with these requirements in a final order, and such
        cannot be readily gleaned by this Court from the record, the laudable and
        indispensable goal of proper appellate review is thwarted.

In re Edward B., 210 W. Va. 621, 632, 558 S.E.2d 620, 631 (2001). Further,

        [w]here a trial court order terminating parental rights merely declares that there is
        no reasonable likelihood that a parent can eliminate the conditions of neglect,
        without explicitly stating factual findings in the order or on the record supporting
        such conclusion, and fails to state statutory findings required by West Virginia
        Code § [49-4-604(c)(6)] on the record or in the order, the order is inadequate.

Id. at 623, 558 S.E.2d at 624, Syl. Pt. 4, in part.

         Specifically, West Virginia Code § 49-4-604(c)(6) explicitly requires that, in order to
terminate parental rights, a circuit court must, among other things, make factual findings to support
its conclusion that there is no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse and neglect can
be substantially corrected in the near future. Here, the circuit court’s dispositional order and the
dispositional hearing transcript are devoid of this conclusion and the requisite supporting factual
findings. The dispositional order simply declared that termination of petitioner’s parental and
guardianship rights is clearly in the best interests of the children. Despite the circuit court’s
conclusion, evidence in the record revealed that petitioner had not screened positive for any
substances for six months prior to disposition; therefore, it is critical to this Court’s review that the
circuit court support its ruling with detailed findings. Accordingly, pursuant to Edward B., we find
the dispositional process has been substantially disregarded and the order is inadequate. As such,
it is necessary to vacate the dispositional order and remand the matter for the entry of a new order
containing detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law specific to petitioner in support of the
dispositional alternative the circuit court finds appropriate.

        We have further explained that “[a]dequate findings must be made in order to protect the
rights of litigants and to facilitate review of the record by an appellate court.” In re Edward B.,
210 W. Va. at 631, 558 S.E.2d at 632. Edward B. concerned a dispositional order that failed to
include specific findings required for termination of parental rights. Id. at 629-30, 558 S.E.2d at
628-29. Although that is not the precise situation at issue in petitioner’s second assignment of error
concerning denial of an improvement period, it is nonetheless instructive in a circumstance in
which the circuit court made no ruling regarding petitioner’s motion for an improvement period.
Such motions are left to the circuit court’s discretion. See In re Tonjia M., 212 W. Va. 443, 448,
573 S.E.2d 354, 359 (2002). However, this Court is unable to undertake a review of whether an
abuse of discretion occurred if the circuit court failed to include any ruling, let alone findings, in
regard to this motion.

        For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the circuit court’s August 11, 2022, order terminating
petitioner’s parental and guardianship rights and remand the matter with instructions for the circuit

                                                      3
court to enter a new dispositional order addressing petitioner’s motion for an improvement period
and determining the proper disposition of petitioner’s parental and guardianship rights, supported
by detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with the West Virginia Rules of
Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings and Chapter 49 of the West Virginia Code.
The Clerk is hereby directed to issue the mandate contemporaneously herewith.

                                                          Vacated and remanded, with directions.

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

                                                4