Court Opinion

ID: 9930985
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 22:16:40.87164+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:12:49.861126
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                             February 7, 2024
                                                                               C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK
                            STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA                           SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
                          SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS                                OF WEST VIRGINIA

In re G.H. and K.A.

No. 22-763 (Randolph County 22-JA-17 and 22-JA-18)

                             MEMORANDUM DECISION

       Petitioner Father D.A. 1 appeals the Circuit Court of Randolph County’s September 14,
2022, order terminating his parental rights. 2 Upon our review, we determine that oral argument is
unnecessary and that a memorandum decision affirming this order is appropriate in accordance
with Rule 21 of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure. However, we remand the case
to the circuit court with directions to address an omission in the September 14, 2022, order,
regarding the disposition of petitioner’s rights to child G.H.

        Petitioner is the father of G.H. and K.A. In March 2022, the DHS filed a petition alleging
that petitioner had a substance abuse problem that impacted his parenting. The DHS received a
referral in February 2022 indicating that G.H. had been born drug exposed from the mother’s use
of Suboxone and Xanax while pregnant. 3 While the investigation was ongoing, police were
called to the mother’s home after a report that petitioner was passed out in a vehicle in front of
the home. According to the petition, petitioner was found with two hypodermic needles and

       1
        Petitioner appears by counsel Steven B. Nanners. The West Virginia Department of
Human Services appears by counsel Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and Assistant Attorney
General Katica Ribel. Counsel Heather M. Weese appears as the children’s guardian ad litem.

       Additionally, pursuant to West Virginia Code § 5F-1-2, the agency formerly known as
the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources was terminated, effective
January 1, 2024, and is now three separate agencies—the Department of Health Facilities, the
Department of Health, and the Department of Human Services. For purposes of abuse and
neglect appeals, the agency is now the Department of Human Services (“DHS”).
       2
       We use initials where necessary to protect the identities of those involved in this case.
See W. Va. R. App. P. 40(e).
       3
       The petition noted that the father of G.H. was unknown. However, paternity testing later
confirmed petitioner was also the father of G.H.

                                                1
multiple controlled substances. Police requested a Child Protective Services (“CPS”) worker to
respond to the home because the children were present. The CPS worker observed drug residue
on the kitchen table and counter, as well as drug paraphernalia, within reach of the children. In
addition, petitioner and the mother appeared intoxicated. The CPS worker removed the children
from the home. The petition further alleged that petitioner’s parental rights to other children were
involuntarily terminated in 2009 as a result of drug use and failure to participate in an
improvement period.

        The circuit court held an adjudicatory hearing in May 2022, where the DHS presented
evidence consistent with the allegations in the petition. Multiple witnesses testified to
petitioner’s intoxication and possession of controlled substances and needles on the day of the
children’s removal. The DHS also introduced the 2009 dispositional order evidencing the prior
involuntary termination of petitioner’s parental rights due to his drug use. Petitioner testified and
denied any substance abuse. He asserted that the only substance he used was a low dose of
Klonopin, which he was prescribed. Petitioner further testified that he voluntarily relinquished
his parental rights to his other children despite the 2009 dispositional order that indicated
otherwise. As a result of petitioner’s insistence, the circuit court continued the adjudicatory
hearing so that additional records from the prior proceedings could be obtained. In June 2022,
the parties reconvened, and the DHS introduced additional certified documents from the 2009
proceedings demonstrating that petitioner’s parental rights were involuntarily terminated. In
addition, the DHS presented testimony that drug testing of petitioner following the previous
hearing showed a variety of drugs in his system beyond those he was lawfully prescribed. Based
on the evidence presented, the circuit court found that petitioner’s parental rights were previously
involuntarily terminated due to his drug use and that there had been no change of circumstances
since that termination. As such, the circuit court adjudicated petitioner as an abusive and
neglectful parent with respect to both G.H. and K.A. Petitioner, thereafter, filed a motion for an
improvement period.

        In August 2022, the circuit court held a dispositional hearing. Petitioner testified in
support of his motion for an improvement period stating that he believed he would fully
participate. Upon questioning from the DHS, however, petitioner could not identify what he
needed to improve on or what behaviors led to his adjudication. In addition, petitioner continued
to deny substance abuse and that his parental rights were previously involuntarily terminated. At
the conclusion of the evidence, the circuit court found that petitioner did not satisfy his burden to
demonstrate that he would fully participate in an improvement period and concluded that an
improvement period for petitioner would be an exercise in futility. The circuit court further
found that petitioner did not have a change in circumstances since his prior termination and was
unable to change with or without help. As such, the circuit court terminated petitioner’s parental
rights, concluding that there was no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse and
neglect could be substantially corrected in the near future and that termination was necessary for
the children’s welfare and best interests. During the dispositional hearing, the circuit court
verbally announced that it was terminating petitioner’s parental rights to both K.A. and G.H. The
written dispositional order reflected the circuit court’s decision to terminate petitioner’s parental
rights to K.A. but omitted its decision to terminate as to G.H. It is from the dispositional order
that petitioner appeals.

                                                 2
        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). In his brief to this court, petitioner first argues
that the circuit court erred in adjudicating him to be an abusing and neglecting parent due to a
prior involuntary termination of his parental rights to other children because the DHS did not
prove the allegations contained in the petition by clear and convincing evidence. Having
reviewed the record, we find no merit in petitioner’s argument. Pursuant to West Virginia Code §
49-4-605(a)(3), the DHS has a duty to initiate proceedings to terminate parental rights when the
parental rights of the parent to another child were previously terminated. Our law is clear that
where there has been a prior involuntary termination of parental rights to a sibling, the circuit
court must review whether the parent has remedied the problems which led to the prior
involuntary termination. See Syl. Pt. 3, in part, In re George Glen B., 207 W. Va. 346, 532
S.E.2d 64 (2000). Here, the record demonstrates that the circuit court had sufficient evidence
upon which to find that nothing changed in petitioner’s life between his prior involuntary
termination and the instant abuse and neglect proceeding. The prior termination was the result of
petitioner’s drug use, and the evidence established that petitioner continued to use drugs. As
such, we find no error in the circuit court’s adjudication of petitioner as an abusing and
neglecting parent based upon the prior involuntary termination of petitioner’s parental rights to
other children.

        Petitioner also contends that it was error to deny his motion for a post-adjudicatory
improvement period. Petitioner argues that his testimony at the dispositional hearing
demonstrated his likelihood to fully participate in the improvement period. See W. Va. Code §
49-4-610(2)(B) (requiring that a parent “demonstrate[], by clear and convincing evidence, that
the [parent] is likely to fully participate” in order to obtain an improvement period). The record,
however, shows petitioner’s refusal to accept any responsibility. As we have held,

       [i]n order to remedy the abuse and/or neglect problem, the problem must first be
       acknowledged. Failure 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
       and in making an improvement period an exercise in futility at the child’s
       expense.

In re Timber M., 231 W. Va. 44, 55, 743 S.E.2d 352, 363 (2013) (citation omitted). During his
testimony, petitioner denied that he had a drug problem, refused to acknowledge any parenting
deficits, failed to admit to any abuse or neglect of the children, could not identify what an
improvement period would allow him to improve upon, and maintained that his parental rights to
other children were voluntarily terminated. Accordingly, the denial of petitioner’s motion for a
post-adjudicatory improvement period was not in error.

         For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit to petitioner’s arguments on appeal and no
error in the circuit court’s rulings in the September 14, 2022, dispositional order. The termination
of petitioner’s parental rights to K.A. is affirmed.

                                                  3
        However, as noted above, the dispositional order did not expressly terminate petitioner’s
rights to G.H. Because the circuit court verbally announced at the hearing that it was terminating
petitioner’s rights to both K.A. and G.H., this omission may be a typographical error. Although
petitioner has not raised this issue on appeal, the disposition of petitioner’s rights to G.H. must
be addressed by the circuit court in a written order. Accordingly, we remand this case to the
circuit court for entry of a corrected dispositional order regarding G.H. See In re I.D. and E.D.,
No. 20-0962, 2021 WL 5326512, at *8 (W. Va. Nov. 16, 2021) (memorandum decision)
(affirming and remanding for entry of corrected dispositional order); John W. v. Rechelle H., No.
19-0202, 2020 WL 201223, *7 (W. Va. Jan. 13, 2020) (memorandum decision) (affirming and
remanding for entry of corrected order). The Clerk is directed to issue the mandate
contemporaneously with this memorandum decision.

                                                         Affirmed and Remanded with directions.

ISSUED: February 7, 2024

CONCURRED IN BY:

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

                                                4