Court Opinion

ID: 9389593
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-25 20:11:44.809065+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:28.714659
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                                   April 25, 2023
                                                                                 EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK

                             STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA                              SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                      OF WEST VIRGINIA
                           SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

In re K.C., C.C., and C.D.

No. 22-556 (Preston County 18-JA-45, 18-JA-46, and 18-JA-47)

                               MEMORANDUM DECISION

        Petitioner Mother M.C.1 appeals the Circuit Court of Preston County’s February 24, 2022,
order terminating her parental and custodial rights to K.C., C.C., and C.D.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.

        The DHHR filed a petition in May of 2018 alleging that petitioner subjected the children
to educational neglect and emotional, psychological, and physical abuse. According to the DHHR,
petitioner abused controlled substances in the children’s presence, demonstrated instability in
housing, and had a history of Child Protective Services involvement in several states. The DHHR
later amended the petition to allege that petitioner was missing and failing drug screens. After
petitioner failed to appear for adjudication in May of 2019, the court ultimately accepted her
stipulation and adjudicated her as an abusing and neglecting parent at a hearing in June of 2019.
Petitioner specifically admitted to a lack of housing and instability that interfered with the
children’s education; failure to protect the children from substance abuse in the home; and use of
controlled substances that interfered with her ability to safely and adequately parent the children.
Petitioner identified deficiencies she needed to address, including not exposing the children to
people who posed a threat, like the children’s fathers; the need to protect the children; the need to
refrain from substance abuse; the need to seek substance abuse treatment; and the need to
participate in services, such as parenting and adult life skills education, domestic violence classes,
and drug screens. The court then granted petitioner a post-adjudicatory improvement period.

       At the conclusion of petitioner’s improvement period, the court held a hearing in January
of 2020, at which time it discovered that petitioner was not fully compliant with drug screens and

       1
        Petitioner appears by counsel Jason T. Gain, who filed the brief in accordance with Rule
10(c)(10)(b) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. The West Virginia Department of Health and
Human Resources (“DHHR”) appears by counsel Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and Assistant
Attorney General Lee Niezgoda. Natalie J. Sal 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
was moving to Romney, West Virginia. The court was also informed that C.C. and C.D. did not
wish to see petitioner. In July of 2020, the DHHR filed a motion to terminate petitioner’s parental
rights as a result of the children’s extended placement in foster care and her failure to successfully
complete her improvement period.

         The court then held a series of dispositional hearings, beginning in September of 2020. The
court heard testimony that petitioner had not drug screened since February of 2020. Further, a
provider testified that beginning in March of 2020, petitioner’s participation in parenting and adult
life skills services became sporadic. The court also heard testimony about petitioner’s issues with
visitation, with one visit ending early because petitioner and one of the fathers “were arguing and
yelling.” Further, petitioner’s noncompliance with visiting the children resulted in her visitation
being terminated entirely in May of 2020. The following month, a provider testified that
petitioner’s services were closed in June of 2020 due to noncompliance. It should also be noted
that petitioner did not attend this hearing,3 but “did enter the [c]ourthouse while the hearing was
in progress and attempted to bond someone out of jail.” During a recess, the court “observed [one
of the fathers] go down and meet with [petitioner] . . . , but she did not choose to come to the
[c]ourtroom during the hearing.”

        During the final dispositional hearing in December of 2020, the court heard from the
children’s therapist, who explained that the children did not wish to have any contact with
petitioner. A DHHR caseworker further explained that petitioner reported at a recent
multidisciplinary team meeting that she was still in a relationship with one of the fathers, despite
an extensive history of domestic violence between the two and his perpetration of physical abuse
on the children. The worker also explained that petitioner did not complete the services required
to correct the conditions of abuse and neglect. Based on the foregoing, the court found that there
was no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse and neglect could be substantially
corrected in the near future and that the children’s best interests required termination of petitioner’s
parental and custodial rights.4 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 it was
error to terminate her rights instead of extending her improvement period. Despite recognizing the
extended nature of the proceedings, petitioner nonetheless argues that she should have been
entitled to additional time to attempt to remedy the conditions of abuse and neglect. We disagree.
In order to grant petitioner an extension of her post-adjudicatory improvement period, the court
would have had to find that petitioner “substantially complied with the terms of the improvement
period.” W. Va. Code § 49-4-610(6). There is simply nothing in the record to support such a

       3
           Petitioner was represented by counsel.
       4
         The court also terminated the parental and custodial rights of the father of K.C. See In re
K.C., No. 22-0221, 2022 WL 14808372 (W. Va. Oct. 26, 2022)(memorandum decision). The
father of the remaining children was granted disposition pursuant to West Virginia Code § 49-4-
604(c)(5). The permanency plan for all of the children is legal guardianship in their current
placements.
                                                    2
finding. On the contrary, the evidence demonstrated that petitioner was noncompliant to the point
that many services were suspended, including visits with the children which ended after petitioner
and one of the fathers behaved inappropriately.

       Further, West Virginia Code § 49-4-610(9) provides that

       no combination of any improvement periods or extensions thereto 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 contained in
       this paragraph

Here, the proceedings progressed well beyond this limit, and the record shows that extending them
further would not have been in the children’s best interests given petitioner’s noncompliance and
inability to correct the conditions of abuse and neglect. While petitioner argues that the case
progressed too long, which operated to her detriment, we find that she was in no way hampered
by the extended opportunity to demonstrate compliance with the services designed to remedy the
conditions of abuse and neglect at issue.

         Similarly, we find no error in the circuit court’s termination of petitioner’s parental and
custodial rights. Petitioner takes issue with several of the court’s factual findings, such as the
finding that petitioner prostituted herself and caused the children’s learning disabilities. However,
these arguments concerning the minutia of the dispositional order are irrelevant because petitioner
does not challenge the circuit court’s finding that there was no reasonable likelihood that she could
substantially correct the conditions of abuse and neglect at issue. According to West Virginia Code
§ 49-4-604(d)(3), a circumstance in which there is no reasonable likelihood conditions of abuse
and neglect can be substantially corrected includes one in which “[t]he abusing parent . . . [has]
not responded to or followed through with a reasonable family case plan or other rehabilitative
efforts . . . designed to reduce or prevent the abuse or neglect of the child.” Again, the evidence
overwhelmingly establishes that petitioner failed to follow through with the required services.
While petitioner argues on appeal that she corrected her substance abuse, even assuming this was
true, it would not entitle her to relief because this was not the sole issue for which she was
adjudicated.

         Further, petitioner argues that the court’s finding that the children required termination of
her parental and custodial rights in order to achieve permanency and stability in their home
environment, among other factors, was in error. According to petitioner, because the court granted
disposition under West Virginia Code § 49-4-604(c)(5) to the father of C.C. and C.D., it could
have also granted petitioner that same disposition without jeopardizing the children. We disagree
and note that West Virginia Code § 49-4-604 authorizes different dispositions for parents in
different circumstances. In re Emily, 208 W. Va. 325, 344, 540 S.E.2d 542, 561 (2000) (finding
that this statute “permits the termination of one parent’s parental rights” despite another parent
retaining parental rights). We further stress that petitioner’s request for disposition under West
Virginia Code § 49-4-604(c)(5) would jeopardize the children’s permanency because that statute
is clear that it provides for temporary commitment of the child to a variety of custodians, including
a suitable guardian. Accordingly, we find that the circuit court was correct in concluding that

                                                  3
termination of petitioner’s parental and custodial rights was necessary for the children’s best
interests. Because the court made the necessary findings upon ample evidence to terminate
petitioner’s rights, we find no error. See W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(c)(6) (permitting a circuit court
to terminate parental and custodial rights upon finding that there is no reasonable likelihood that
the conditions of neglect can be substantially corrected in the near future and when necessary for
the child’s welfare); see also Syl. Pt. 5, In re Kristin Y., 227 W. Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (2011)
(permitting termination of parental and custodial rights “without the use of intervening less
restrictive alternatives when it is found that there is no reasonable likelihood . . . that conditions of
neglect . . . can be substantially corrected”).

       For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the decision of the circuit court, and its
February 24, 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

                                                   4