Court Opinion

ID: 9893062
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-25 19:14:08.451542+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:52:53.066549
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 W.H. and B.H.

No. 22-856 (Preston County 21-JA-94 and 21-JA-95)

                               MEMORANDUM DECISION

        Petitioners—Mother T.H. 1 and the children’s guardian ad litem—appeal the Circuit Court
of Preston County’s October 24, 2022, order granting equal custody of W.H. and B.H. to both
parents. 2 Upon our review, we determine that oral argument is unnecessary and that a
memorandum decision vacating the circuit court’s October 24, 2022, order and remanding for
further proceedings is appropriate, in accordance with the “limited circumstances” requirement of
Rule 21(d) of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure.

        In August 2021, the DHHR filed a petition that alleged that respondent father S.H.’s (“the
father”) 3 volatile behavior and excessive corporal punishment caused the children emotional,
psychological, and potential physical abuse and/or neglect. The petition further alleged that
petitioner mother (“the mother”) failed to protect the children from the father’s conduct, in addition
to alleging domestic violence between the parents and that the parents abused alcohol and
marijuana.

        At a hearing in November 2021, the court granted the mother a preadjudicatory
improvement period. The following month, the father stipulated to engaging in excessive corporal
punishment that constituted physical abuse and resulted in injury to B.H. The court then granted
the father a post-adjudicatory improvement period, after which it held a series of review hearings

       1
        Petitioner Mother appears by counsel Hilary M. Bright. Counsel Kristen D. Antolini
appears as the children’s guardian ad litem, and is a co-petitioner herein. The West Virginia
Department of Health and Human Resources (“DHHR”) appears by counsel Attorney General
Patrick Morrisey and Assistant Attorney General Lee Niezgoda. Respondent Father S.H. appears
by counsel Kevin T. Tipton.
       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
         S.H. is the biological father of W.H. Although S.H. is not the biological father of B.H., he
is B.H.’s stepfather. The court found that he was a psychological parent to this child. Accordingly,
we refer to him as “the father” throughout this memorandum decision.
                                                  1
on the improvement periods over the next several months, culminating in a hearing in March 2022.
According to the parties, at that time the court dismissed the matter against the mother and placed
the children in her legal and physical custody. It appears from the record that the father was later
successful in his improvement period. As such, the parties were ordered to submit proposed
parenting plans to allocate custodial responsibility between the separated, and subsequently
divorced, parents. Because the parties could not agree on custodial allocation, the court held a
hearing in September 2022 to establish a parenting plan. During that hearing, counsel for the father
expressed a desire to present witnesses and evidence, while the mother’s counsel filed a disclosure
of potential witnesses and exhibits to introduce in support of custodial allocation. However, the
court “stated that it did not believe that the presentation of witnesses is necessary.” The court then
continued the matter so that it could finalize a parenting plan. At the final hearing in October 2022,
without permitting any party to call witnesses or introduce any other evidence, the court imposed
a parenting plan granting joint legal custody to the parents under specific terms and conditions that
are not relevant to the resolution of this appeal. In allocating custodial responsibility, the circuit
court failed to discuss any of the required factors from West Virginia Code §§ 48-9-206, -207, or
-209, as more fully addressed below. It is from the October 24, 2022, order allocating custodial
responsibility that petitioners appeal.

        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).

        Here, it is clear that vacation and remand are required because the court failed to consider
any of the statutorily required factors. We have explained as follows:

       “A circuit court is obligated to apply the factors and considerations set forth in West
       Virginia Code §§ 48-9-206 (2018) and -207 (2001) in allocating custodial and
       decision-making responsibilities when reunifying children subject to abuse and
       neglect proceedings with parents . . . who are no longer cohabitating at the close of
       the proceedings. Where findings of abuse and/or neglect have been established, the
       circuit court must further employ the mandatory considerations and procedures set
       forth in West Virginia Code § 48-9-209 (2016), in order to protect the children from
       further abuse and/or neglect.”

See Syl. Pt. 5, in part, In re T.M., 242 W. Va. 268, 835 S.E.2d 132 (2019). Without specifically
addressing all of the factors set forth in those statutes, we note that West Virginia Code § 48-9-
209(b) requires courts to “impose limits that are reasonably calculated to protect the child . . . from
harm” when a parent has abused or neglected a child. As set forth above, the father was adjudicated

                                                  2
for abusing and neglecting the children while the mother was not. This is an important factor to
consider in such situations, and the Legislature has mandated that circuit courts take measures to
protect children from additional harm.

        Petitioners are correct that the circuit court’s failure to permit the parties to present
evidence and witnesses on the issue of custodial allocation was clearly erroneous. According to
West Virginia Code § 49-4-604(a), in proceeding to hold a dispositional hearing, the court must
“giv[e] both the petitioner and respondents an opportunity to be heard.” Further, West Virginia
Code § 49-4-601(h) provides, in relevant part, as follows: “Right to be heard. -- In any proceeding
pursuant to this article, the party or parties having custodial or other parental rights or
responsibilities to the child shall be afforded a meaningful opportunity to be heard, including the
opportunity to testify and to present and cross-examine witnesses.” (Emphasis added). As we have
explained, “[b]oth our statutory and case law unequivocally require that parents . . . be afforded a
meaningful opportunity to be heard. This necessarily includes the right to testify and to present
witnesses, as well as to cross-examine witnesses in any abuse and neglect proceeding.” In re T.S.,
241 W. Va. 559, 564, 827 S.E.2d 29, 34 (2019). Finally, West Virginia Code § 48-9-206(d)
provides as follows: “In the absence of an agreement of the parents, the court’s determination of
allocation of custodial responsibility under this section shall be made pursuant to a final hearing,
which shall be conducted by the presentation of evidence.” (Emphasis added). Accordingly, we
must vacate the court’s order and remand the matter with instructions for the court to hold a hearing
and permit the parties to exercise their right to be heard—including presenting and cross-
examining witnesses—followed by the entry of a new order directly addressing the relevant
statutory factors.

        For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the circuit court’s October 24, 2022, order allocating
custodial responsibility and remand this matter to the circuit court for further proceedings as
directed by this memorandum decision. The court is further directed to undertake any additional
proceedings 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 directed to issue the mandate
contemporaneously herewith.

                                                           Vacated and Remanded, with directions.

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

                                                 3