Court Opinion

ID: 9369093
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-07 20:12:20.017085+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:12.817982
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                                 February 7, 2023
                                                                                  EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK
                              STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA                              SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

                            SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                       OF WEST VIRGINIA

In re J.D.-1,

No. 22-0398 (Ohio County 21-CJA-40)

                               MEMORANDUM DECISION

       Petitioner Father J.D.-2 1 appeals the Circuit Court of Ohio County’s April 19, 2022, order
terminating his parental rights to J.D.-1. 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 April of 2021, the DHHR filed a petition alleging that the mother engaged in illicit drug
use and domestic violence, failed to provide the necessary care for the child, and exposed the child
to inappropriate individuals. The DHHR also alleged that petitioner had a lengthy criminal history
and lived with a partner who had a history with child protective services. At that time, petitioner
was on parole, and despite the above concerns, the DHHR placed the child in his physical custody,
and, in June of 2021, the court granted petitioner a pre-adjudicatory improvement period, the terms
of which included facilitating supervised visits with the mother, submitting to random drug
screening, and obeying all state and federal laws. However, in August of 2021, the DHHR moved
to terminate petitioner’s pre-adjudicatory improvement period arguing that he and his wife (who
is not the child’s mother) were arrested in Ohio for drug offenses. As a result, the DHHR filed an
amended petition alleging the arrest and drug-related activity in the home.

        The court held an adjudicatory hearing in October of 2021, wherein it determined that
petitioner was an abusing and neglectful parent based upon his illicit drug use and drug trafficking

       1
         Petitioner appears by counsel, Peter P. Kurelac III. The West Virginia Department of
Health and Human Resources (“DHHR”) appears by counsel Attorney General Patrick Morrisey
and Assistant Attorney General Lee Niezgoda. Joseph J. Moses appears as the child’s guardian ad
litem. Additionally, as the child and petitioner share the same initials, we refer to them respectively
as J.D.-1 and J.D.-2 throughout this memorandum decision.
       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 the home with the child. The court noted that petitioner and his wife were arrested for drug
trafficking and that petitioner was currently incarcerated and unable to care for the child. 3

         The circuit court held a final dispositional hearing in March of 2022. Petitioner appeared
in person but remained incarcerated due to a parole violation. Petitioner requested an alternative
disposition, such as a guardianship of the child, asserting that he might be released on parole in
the future. The DHHR and the guardian opposed petitioner’s motion and moved for the termination
of petitioner’s parental rights.

         Ultimately, the circuit court concluded that petitioner had a “repetitive and longstanding”
failure to provide for the child due to his drug addiction and continuing criminal activity. The court
noted petitioner’s admitted relapse in June of 2021; his failure to address his addiction through
drug treatment; and his continued engagement in criminal activity, including drug trafficking,
which resulted in his “further incarceration.” The court found that there was no reasonable
likelihood that the conditions of neglect and abuse could be substantially corrected in the near
future and that termination was necessary for the child’s welfare. Based upon these findings, the
court terminated petitioner’s parental rights by its April 19, 2022, order, which petitioner now
appeals. 4

        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 denying his motion for an alternative
disposition to the termination of his parental rights. In support, he cites his alleged bond with the
child, his alleged potential release date, and his claim that he provided “proper care for his child
throughout the pendency of the underlying matter.” 5 However, petitioner concedes in his brief that
he had physical custody of the child for only five months of the twelve-month pendency of this
case and that he complied with his pre-adjudicatory improvement period for only two months
before his arrest for drug trafficking. 6 Further, petitioner puts forth no record of a bond between
himself and the child, and the record shows that the child was living with the mother during the
initial removal and that petitioner had been released on parole shortly before that removal. As for
petitioner’s argument regarding his potential release date, it is purely speculative, and the circuit
court was not required to “exhaust every speculative possibility of parental improvement . . . where

       3
        The court terminated petitioner’s pre-adjudicatory improvement period by order entered
in February of 2022.
       4
         The mother’s parental rights were also terminated, and the permanency plan for the child
is adoption by a foster family.
       5
      Petitioner also cited the mother’s ongoing improvement period in support of his argument.
However, the mother’s parental rights have also been terminated; thus, this argument is moot.
       6
       At the time of the termination of petitioner’s parental rights, the proceedings remained
ongoing.
                                                  2
it appears that the welfare of the child will be seriously threatened[.]” Syl. Pt. 1, in part, In re
R.J.M., 164 W. Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (1980). Petitioner contends that his “temporary”
incarceration and the resultant inability to care for the child was the “only” reason the court
terminated his parental rights. However, the record shows that, in addition to petitioner’s “further
incarceration,” the court cited petitioner’s repeated criminal violations, drug abuse, and drug
trafficking while caring for the child; his “repetitive and longstanding” failure to provide for the
child; and his failure to obtain drug treatment and participate in his case plan. As such, the circuit
court considered many factors other than petitioner’s incarceration and, therefore, did not violate
Syllabus Point 3 of In re Cecil T., which held, in part, that,

              [w]hen no factors and circumstances other than incarceration are raised at a
       disposition hearing in a child abuse and neglect proceeding with regard to a parent’s
       ability to remedy the condition of abuse and neglect in the near future, the circuit
       court shall evaluate whether the best interests of a child are served by terminating
       the rights of the biological parent in light of the evidence before it.

Id. at 91, 717 S.E.2d at 875.

        The circuit court’s finding that there was no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of
neglect and abuse could be substantially corrected in the near future was supported by the above
factors, as well as petitioner’s failure to complete the terms of his pre-adjudicatory improvement
period. See W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(d)(3) (providing that there is no reasonable likelihood that
the 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 of social, medical, mental health, or other rehabilitative agencies designed to
reduce or prevent the abuse or neglect of the child.”); see also Syl. Pt. 5, In re Kristin Y., 227 W.
Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (2011) (holding that “[t]ermination of parental rights . . . may be employed
without the use of intervening less restrictive alternatives when it is found that there is no
reasonable likelihood . . . that the conditions of neglect or abuse can be substantially corrected”).
Upon this record, the Court finds no error in the circuit court’s termination of petitioner’s parental
rights.

       For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the decision of the circuit court, and its April
19, 2022, order is hereby affirmed.

                                                                                           Affirmed.

ISSUED: February 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