Court Opinion

ID: 9960367
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-15 23:17:51.508816+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:24.070508
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                                 April 15, 2024
                                                                                 C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK
                             STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA                            SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                    OF WEST VIRGINIA
                           SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

In re B.S. and K.S.

No. 23-146 (Randolph County CC-42-2020-JA-91 and CC-42-2020-JA-92)

                              MEMORANDUM DECISION

        Petitioner Mother B.F.1 appeals the Circuit Court of Randolph County’s February 12, 2023,
order terminating her parental rights to B.S. and K.S, arguing that the circuit court erred when it
terminated her post-dispositional improvement period and terminated her parental rights.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 July 2020, the DHS filed a petition alleging that petitioner abused and neglected her
children by abusing drugs and allowing others who abuse drugs to care for and be in the presence
of her children. The petition further alleged that petitioner neglected to get appropriate dental,
vision, and mental health care for B.S., as she inexplicably failed to take B.S. for a surgery, did
not provide him with his ADHD medication as prescribed, failed to address his rotting teeth, and
neglected to replace his broken glasses. The Child Protective Services (“CPS”) employee who
visited the home observed petitioner, K.S., and two men at the home. The CPS employee also
observed that the home in which B.F. and the children resided was in “deplorable” condition with
trash, bugs, dirt, and exposed wires present. The CPS employee identified one of the men present
at the home as a known drug user and he openly admitted that he used drugs on that day. Petitioner
informed the CPS employee that the children’s father did not use drugs, but later reported she left
the relationship due to his drug use. The CPS employee traveled to the father’s residence, as B.S.
was reportedly staying with him. Upon arrival at the father’s residence, the CPS employee

       1
        Petitioner appears by counsel Stephen Mallow Jr. The West Virginia Department of
Human Services appears by counsel Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and Assistant Attorney
General Katica Ribel. Counsel Heather Weese appears as the children’s guardian ad litem
(“guardian”).

       Additionally, pursuant to West Virginia Code § 5F-2-1a, the agency formerly known as
the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources was terminated. It is now three
separate agencies—the Department of Health Facilities, the Department of Health, and the
Department of Human Services. See W. Va. Code § 5F-1-2. 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).
                                                 1
observed the child sitting outside with another known drug user. Further, the children’s father
admitted to using drugs one day prior to the CPS employee’s visit.

        In October 2020, petitioner stipulated to exposing the children to inappropriate individuals
and failing to obtain necessary medical care. The circuit court entered an order adjudicating
petitioner of abusing and neglecting the children based upon her stipulation. After her adjudication,
petitioner filed a written motion for a post-adjudicatory improvement period, which was later
granted. According to the record, petitioner’s improvement period required her to complete
services including parenting courses, adult life skills, healthy relationship classes, and individual
counseling. Additionally, petitioner was to follow through with all recommendations from her drug
and alcohol assessment, abstain from drugs and alcohol, and complete random drug screens.
Finally, petitioner was required to provide valid prescriptions for all her medications. The record
indicates that petitioner was disqualified from participation in family drug treatment court because
of her refusal to acknowledge her drug problem. As the court held various review hearings, it
continued petitioner’s improvement period on several occasions and later granted petitioner a post-
dispositional improvement period in December 2021. However, in April 2022, the guardian moved
to terminate petitioner’s improvement period based upon petitioner’s drug use throughout the
proceedings. The guardian noted that petitioner was able to produce negative blood screens from
October 2021 through December 2021. However, her blood tests were positive for
methamphetamine on January 21, 2022, and February 8, 2022.

        At a hearing on the guardian’s motion, petitioner claimed that her positive test results were
due to her job as a housekeeper at a resort, where she claims to have encountered drugs while
cleaning. Despite these positive screens, the court extended petitioner’s improvement period.
However, by September 2022, the court found that petitioner had positive screens for alcohol and
noted that the children had been in custody for fifteen of the most recent twenty-two months. Thus,
the court scheduled a status hearing to review petitioner’s progress and permitted petitioner’s
improvement period to continue.3

        At the December 2022, status hearing, the executive director of North Central Community
Corrections, the entity that performed petitioner’s drug screens, confirmed that petitioner tested
positive for various drugs and alcohol at multiple screens. Some tests were positive for
methamphetamine and alcohol, while others were positive for prescription drugs for which
petitioner did not present a prescription. The witness noted that petitioner’s December 2020 urine
sample had no temperature. She further noted that at no point did petitioner acknowledge her drug
and alcohol use, despite her multiple positive tests. A DHS case worker who worked with the
petitioner and her family testified that the children were in foster care for twenty-nine months and
that the DHS’s recommendation was termination, which was in the children’s best interest. She
went on to state that at no point did petitioner have a period of sobriety long enough to alleviate
the DHS’s concerns for the children’s safety. The witness further stated that petitioner at no point
acknowledged her drug or alcohol use, despite her many positive tests. Petitioner testified, stating
that she never used drugs or alcohol during her improvement period. At the conclusion of the

       3
        The court referred to this hearing as an “end review hearing.” For clarity, we refer to it
simply as a status hearing.
                                                 2
hearing, the court ended petitioner’s improvement period as unsuccessful due to petitioner’s recent
positive drug and alcohol screens.

         In January 2023, the court held a dispositional hearing at which it took judicial notice of
the testimony presented at the previous status hearing. Petitioner again testified that she never used
drugs or alcohol at any point during the proceedings, despite multiple positive drug and alcohol
screens. Then, she testified that although she did not use drugs, she participated in substance abuse
treatment at Recovery Resource. Ultimately, the court found that petitioner abused drugs and failed
to recognize her drug problem, despite her multiple positive screens for various drugs and alcohol.
As a result of her drug use, the court determined that she was presently unwilling and unable to
adequately provide for the children’s needs. The court noted that her use of drugs and alcohol
directly contravened the terms of her improvement period and precluded her from a less-restrictive
disposition. The court found that petitioner participated in many services but declined drug
treatment. The court determined that reunification was not in the children’s best interest and that
the children’s permanency required termination of petitioner’s parental rights. The court noted that
petitioner was given numerous extensions and was offered a litany of services, but there was no
possibility that petitioner could recognize and resolve the conditions that led to the filing of the
initial petition. Ultimately, the court terminated petitioner’s parental 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 first argues that the
court erred when it terminated her post-dispositional improvement period because the evidence
was insufficient to find that petitioner did not fully participate. West Virginia Code § 49-4-610(7)
directs a circuit court, “[u]pon the motion by any party,” to “terminate any improvement period . .
. when the court finds that respondent has failed to fully participate in the terms of the improvement
period.” Furthermore,

               [a]t the conclusion of the improvement period, the court shall review the
       performance of the parents in attempting to attain the goals of the improvement
       period and shall, in the court’s discretion, determine whether the conditions of the
       improvement period have been satisfied and whether sufficient improvement has
       been made in the context of all the circumstances of the case to justify the return of
       the child.

Syl. Pt. 6, In re Carlita B., 185 W. Va. 613, 408 S.E.2d 365 (1991). While petitioner contends that
she “extended genuine effort and energy into the post-dispositional improvement period,” the court
found that she did not fully participate because she could not abstain from drugs and alcohol—one
of the most central terms of her improvement period. Further, it is important to stress that the court
far exceeded statutorily available improvement period time limits by granting petitioner a total of
five extensions over the course of two years. See W. Va. Code § 49-4-610(9) (“[N]o combination
of any improvement periods or extensions thereto may cause a child to be in foster care more than

       4
        The father’s parental rights were relinquished below. The permanency plan for the
children is adoption in the current placement.
                                                  3
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”). Thus, petitioner’s argument that the court improperly
terminated her improvement period is meritless.

        Petitioner also argues that the circuit court erred when it terminated her parental rights,
contending that there was a less restrictive alternative available. To support her argument,
petitioner states that she participated in drug testing and supervised visitations. Petitioner asserts
that a guardianship disposition as contemplated by West Virginia Code § 49-4-604(c)(5) was
appropriate. However, we have held that termination is appropriate “when it is found that there is
no reasonable likelihood under [West Virginia Code § 49-4-604(c)(6)] that conditions of neglect
or abuse can be substantially corrected.” Syl. Pt. 5, in part, In re Kristin Y., 227 W. Va. 558, 712
S.E.2d 55 (2011) (quoting Syl. Pt. 2, In re R.J.M., 164 W. Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (1980)).

        No reasonable likelihood that the conditions of neglect or abuse can be corrected exists
when “the abusing parent or parents have habitually abused or are addicted to alcohol, controlled
substances or drugs to the extent that proper parenting skills have been seriously impaired and the
person or persons have not responded to or followed through the recommended and appropriate
treatment which could have improved the capacity for adequate parental functioning.” W. Va.
Code § 49-4-604(d)(1). We have also held that “[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 . . . results in making the problem untreatable.” In re Timber M., 231 W. Va. 44, 55, 743
S.E.2d 352, 363 (2013). The evidence shows that after nearly two years of improvement periods,
petitioner was unable to abstain from drugs and alcohol and refused to acknowledge her substance
abuse issues. The court explicitly stated that a guardianship disposition was inappropriate due to
petitioner’s refusal to acknowledge a substance abuse problem. The court determined that there
was no possibility that petitioner could recognize and resolve the conditions that led to the filing
of the initial petition and found that the children’s best interest was to remain in the placement
where they had been for the last thirty months. Based upon ample evidence, the court properly
terminated petitioner’s parental rights.

       For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the decision of the circuit court, and its
February 12, 2023, order is hereby affirmed.

                                                                                           Affirmed.

ISSUED: April 15, 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