Court Opinion

ID: 9840910
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-20 16:14:46.158764+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:29:53.907864
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                              September 20, 2023
                                                                                 EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK
                             STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA                              SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

                           SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS                                   OF WEST VIRGINIA

In re H.W.

No. 22-780 (Randolph County 22-JA-46)

                               MEMORANDUM DECISION

        Petitioner Mother S.C. 1 appeals the Circuit Court of Randolph County’s September 14,
2022, order denying her motion for an improvement period and terminating her parental rights to
the child, H.W. 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 June 2022, the DHHR filed a petition alleging that petitioner gave birth to the child while
in jail awaiting indictment for drug charges and that her rights to one older child had been
previously involuntarily terminated based on substance abuse. 3 The circuit court held an
adjudicatory hearing in July 2022, during which petitioner stipulated to the allegations in the
DHHR’s petition. Petitioner further stipulated that the prior abuse and neglect proceedings
resulting in termination of her parental rights constitute aggravated circumstances in this case.
Accordingly, the circuit court adjudicated petitioner as an abusing and neglecting parent. At some
point in time petitioner moved the court for a post-adjudicatory improvement period. The record
does not reflect that petitioner filed a written motion, and the record on appeal does not clearly
establish when she filed the motion.

       The circuit court proceeded to disposition in August 2022, at which time the DHHR and
the guardian supported denial of an improvement period and termination of petitioner’s parental

       1
        Petitioner appears by counsel J. Brent Easton. The West Virginia Department of Health
and Human Resources (“DHHR”) appears by counsel Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and
Assistant Attorney General Katica Ribel. Counsel Heather Weese 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).
       3
         Additionally, petitioner voluntarily relinquished her rights to four other children in an
abuse and neglect proceeding initiated in 2015 after petitioner gave birth to a drug-exposed infant.
Petitioner participated in an improvement period, which ended unsuccessfully after she tested
positive for numerous substances.
                                                  1
rights. The court heard testimony of petitioner, indicating that she remained in jail on the pending
drug charges and was anticipating indictment in October 2022. Petitioner asserted that she enrolled
in education classes offered at the jail and would participate in an improvement period if granted
one; however, she admitted that she had participated in improvement periods in the past abuse and
neglect matters, which resulted in termination of her parental rights.

        At the conclusion of the testimony, the circuit court denied petitioner’s motion for an
improvement period. The court emphasized that petitioner’s prior terminations constituted
aggravated circumstances 4 and she failed to show that she changed her circumstances since that
time. The court also found that the services petitioner was able to participate in would not be
sufficient to meaningfully address the parenting deficits in this matter. The court concluded that
petitioner had not proven that she is likely to fully participate in an improvement period. The court
then terminated petitioner’s parental rights. The court found that petitioner made no effort to
address the substance abuse and other conditions leading to the termination of her parental rights
to her other children because she was using drugs until she was taken into custody and determined
to be pregnant with the child, H.W. Thus, the circuit court concluded that there was no reasonable
likelihood that the conditions of abuse and neglect could be substantially corrected in the near
future and that termination of her parental rights was necessary to ensure the best interest and
welfare of the child. It is from the dispositional order that petitioner appeals. 5

        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 the circuit
court abused its discretion by denying her motion for a post-adjudicatory improvement period and
instead terminating her parental rights. Upon our review, we find no error.

        Petitioner’s argument concerning a post-adjudicatory improvement period is unavailing
because the record is devoid of a written motion. As we have explained, “[a] circuit court may not
grant a post-adjudicatory improvement period under W. Va. Code § 49-4-610(2) (eff. 2015) unless
the respondent to the abuse and neglect petition files a written motion requesting the improvement
period.” Syl. Pt. 4, State ex rel. P.G.-1 v. Wilson, 247 W. Va. 235, 878 S.E.2d 730 (2021). On
appeal, petitioner claims that she filed a written motion, but her citations to the record reveal no

       4
           We have found that,

       [t]echnically, a prior termination does not constitute “aggravated circumstances,”
       but rather is listed alongside other specifically delineated aggravated circumstances
       (i.e., abandonment, torture, chronic abuse and sexual abuse) as an equal basis upon
       which to find that reunification efforts are unnecessary. It is, however, commonly
       referred to as an aggravated circumstance . . . .

In re A.P., 245 W. Va. 248, 263 n.18, 858 S.E.2d 873, 888 n.18 (2021); W. Va. Code § 49-4-
602(d)(3).
       5
        The father of the child voluntarily relinquished his parental rights at the dispositional
hearing in July 2022. The permanency plan for the child is adoption in the current foster placement.
                                                  2
evidentiary support. Because the record does not indicate that a written motion was filed, petitioner
cannot be entitled to relief.

        Turning to disposition, this Court finds no error in the circuit court’s termination of
petitioner’s parental rights. We have held as follows:

               “Termination of parental rights, the most drastic remedy under the statutory
       provision covering the disposition of neglected children, [West Virginia Code § 49-
       4-604] . . . may be employed without the use of intervening less restrictive
       alternatives when it is found that there is no reasonable likelihood under [West
       Virginia Code § 49-4-604(d)] . . . that conditions of neglect or abuse can be
       substantially corrected.” Syllabus point 2, In re R.J.M., 164 W.Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d
       114 (1980).

Syl. Pt. 5, In re Kristin Y., 227 W. Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (2011). Here, the court considered
evidence that petitioner was unsuccessful in prior improvement periods, including one that resulted
in the involuntary termination of her parental rights to another child; petitioner’s drug use
following said prior termination; and the fact that petitioner was in jail and would not be able to
meaningfully participate in services to correct the problems of abuse and neglect. 6 Based on the
foregoing, the circuit court found improvement would not be likely. Not only are circuit courts
directed to terminate parental rights upon this finding when termination is necessary for the
children’s welfare, but we have also previously held as follows:

       [w]here there has been a prior involuntary termination of parental rights to a sibling,
       the issue of whether the parent has remedied the problems which led to the prior
       involuntary termination sufficient to parent a subsequently-born child must, at
       minimum, be reviewed by a court, and such review should be initiated on a petition
       pursuant to the provisions governing the procedure in cases of child neglect or
       abuse set forth in West Virginia Code §§ [49-4-601 through 49-4-610]. Although
       the requirement that such a petition be filed does not mandate termination in all
       circumstances, the legislature has reduced the minimum threshold of evidence
       necessary for termination where one of the factors outlined in West Virginia Code
       § [49-4-605(a)] is present.

       6
         Petitioner additionally argues that, although she could not post bond, she would have been
released if not indicted in the October 2022 term of court and could have thereafter participated
more fully in an improvement period. However, we note that Rule 5 of the Rules of Procedure for
Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings provides that “[u]nder no circumstances shall a child abuse
and neglect [proceeding] be delayed pending the initiation, investigation, prosecution, or
resolution of any other proceeding, including, but not limited to, criminal proceedings.” As such,
the circuit court did not err in its decision considering that the court had no knowledge at that time
when or if petitioner would be indicted, whether she would be ultimately convicted, or what her
potential sentence would be if she were to be convicted.

                                                  3
In re Kyiah P., 213 W. Va. 424, 427, 582 S.E.2d 871, 874 (2003) (quoting Syl. Pt. 2, In the Matter
of George Glen B., 205 W. Va. 435, 518 S.E.2d 863 (1999)). The circuit court specifically
reviewed petitioner’s prior involuntary termination as set forth in the DHHR’s petition and
concluded that the same conditions of abuse and neglect affected H.W. Therefore, it was not error
for the circuit court to terminate petitioner’s parental rights.

       For the foregoing reasons, the circuit court’s dispositional order of September 14, 2022, is
hereby affirmed.

                                                                                        Affirmed.

ISSUED: September 20, 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