Court Opinion

ID: 9377433
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-07 19:12:07.603038+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:14.151261
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                                  March 7, 2023
                                                                                EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK

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

In re T.H.

No. 22-0461 (Monroe County 21-JA-24)

                              MEMORANDUM DECISION

       Petitioner Father K.H. 1 appeals the Circuit Court of Monroe County’s May 5, 2022, order
terminating his parental rights to T.H.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 October of 2021, the DHHR filed a petition alleging that petitioner provided improper
supervision, failed to follow a safety plan, engaged in substance abuse, and failed drug screens.
The petition reported that, late one night, a neighbor found then five-year-old T.H. walking alone
along Rt. 219, a highway with no sidewalks and a thirty-five-mile-per-hour speed limit. According
to the petition, police retrieved the child from the neighbor and proceeded to petitioner’s home
where an officer “found meth and several drug paraphernalia items.” The mother, who had been
home alone with the child, admitted to using drugs and falling asleep. The petition further asserted
that petitioner eventually admitted to using drugs recreationally, though he denied having a
substance abuse problem. Child Protective Services initiated a safety plan that required petitioner,
in pertinent part, to submit to random drug screens and to supervise visitation between T.H. and
his mother. During the safety plan period, petitioner failed at least two drug screens, testing
positive for six drugs, including fentanyl, methamphetamine, and opiates. Rather than accepting
responsibility for his drug abuse, petitioner claimed the cup had been tampered with or that the
results showed a false positive. In further violation of the safety plan, petitioner permitted T.H.’s
mother to have unsupervised access to the child. Due to both parents’ noncompliance, the DHHR
removed the child from the home and filed the abuse and neglect petition.

       1
        Petitioner appears by counsel John C. Anderson, II. The West Virginia Department of
Health and Human Resources (“DHHR”) appears by counsel Attorney General Patrick Morrisey
and Assistant Attorney General Brittany Ryers-Hindbaugh. Amy L. Mann appears as the child’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
        In December of 2021, petitioner stipulated to neglecting T.H. by leaving him in the
mother’s care, knowing of her addiction to controlled substances. The court adjudicated petitioner
of neglect and granted him a post-adjudicatory improvement period, the terms of which required
him to participate in services, submit to a substance abuse treatment program and random drug
screens, maintain appropriate housing and gainful employment, and continue visitation, among
other requirements.

         Petitioner did not attend his review hearing in March of 2022, although he was represented
by counsel. During the hearing, the court heard evidence of his noncompliance, including his
failure to participate in services, submit to further drug screening, attend the multidisciplinary team
(“MDT”) meetings, or maintain communication with his attorney. Based on the MDT’s
recommendation—and without objection—the court scheduled the dispositional hearing for later
that month. Petitioner did not attend the dispositional hearing either, although he was again
represented by counsel. Upon consideration of the evidence and the arguments of counsel, the
court found that petitioner failed to obtain/maintain stable housing, submit to drug screens,
participate in services, maintain contact with his service providers, or visit with T.H. Based on
petitioner’s clear noncompliance, the court concluded that there was no reasonable likelihood that
the conditions of abuse and neglect could be corrected in the near future and that termination was
necessary for the welfare of the child. Accordingly, the circuit court terminated petitioner’s
parental rights to T.H. 3 It is from this order that petitioner now 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). Petitioner argues that the circuit court erred in
finding there was no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse and neglect could be
corrected in the near future, claiming that he tried contacting the DHHR on numerous occasions
to no avail and that he had suffered a house fire, which hindered his ability to participate in
services. We disagree as petitioner offers no evidence to support his assertions. Instead, the record
clearly reflects that petitioner was given every opportunity to correct the conditions of abuse and
neglect, yet he failed to participate in offered services and these proceedings. Moreover, petitioner
tested positive on all drug screens to which he submitted, failed to enter a substance abuse
treatment program, did not obtain/maintain stable housing, and forewent visitation with his son.
Petitioner’s clear noncompliance throughout the entirety of the case is strong evidence of his
inability to correct the conditions of abuse and neglect. See W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(d)(3)
(establishing that there is no reasonable likelihood that conditions of neglect or abuse can be
substantially corrected when “[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”). Because the circuit court made the requisite findings based
upon ample evidence to support termination of petitioner’s parental rights, we find no error. See
W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(c)(6) (permitting a circuit court to terminate parental rights upon finding
that there is no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse and neglect can be substantially
corrected in the near future and when necessary for the child’s welfare).

       3
         All parents’ parental rights have been terminated. The permanency plan is adoption in the
current placement.
                                                  2
       For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the decision of the circuit court, and its May
5, 2022, order is hereby affirmed.

                                                                                         Affirmed.

ISSUED: March 7, 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