Court Opinion

ID: 9389606
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-25 20:11:48.299452+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:28.700651
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                                 April 25, 2023
                                                                                EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK
                             STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA                            SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

                           SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS                                 OF WEST VIRGINIA

In re A.W.-1 and A.W.-2

No. 22-580 (Kanawha County 21-JA-135 and 21-JA-136)

                              MEMORANDUM DECISION

        Petitioner Mother D.W.1 appeals the Circuit Court of Kanawha County’s June 14, 2022,
order terminating her parental rights to A.W.-1 and A.W.-2.2 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 March of 2021, the DHHR filed a petition alleging that petitioner’s substance abuse
negatively impacted her ability to parent. The DHHR also alleged that it had provided five months
of safety services prior to filing the instant petition after A.W.-1 disclosed witnessing petitioner
use marijuana and methamphetamine. During the five months of safety services, petitioner tested
positive for methamphetamine, marijuana, buprenorphine, and ecstasy (MDMA) on four
occasions. The DHHR further asserted that A.W.-1 expressed ideations of self-harm and suffered
from depression. Shortly after the petition’s filing, petitioner waived her right to a contested
preliminary hearing, and the circuit court ordered the DHHR to provide reunification services
including parenting education and adult life skills classes, random drug and alcohol screens, a
psychological evaluation, and supervised visitations with the children.

        The circuit court adjudicated petitioner as an abusing parent in May of 2021 based on her
stipulation to the allegations in the petition. The court granted petitioner’s motion for an
improvement period. In addition to participating with existing services, petitioner was required to
successfully complete a substance abuse treatment program and follow the recommendations in
the report from her psychological evaluation.

       1
        Petitioner appears by counsel Matthew Smith. The West Virginia Department of Health
and Human Resources (“DHHR”) appears by counsel Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and
Assistant Attorney General Andrew T. Waight. Sharon K. Childers appears as the children’s
guardian ad litem. Additionally, as the children share the same initials, we refer to them
respectively as A.W.-1 and A.W.-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
        Thereafter, the circuit court held several review hearings and continued the terms of
petitioner’s post-adjudicatory improvement period. Petitioner tested positive for marijuana on
several occasions, and supervised visits were suspended in July of 2021 but reinstated in
September of 2021. In December of 2021, petitioner had still not enrolled in an inpatient drug
treatment program and had tested positive for opiates. The court then ordered petitioner to
complete an inpatient drug rehabilitation program. As of March of 2022, the multidisciplinary
team had agreed to extend petitioner’s improvement period several times and petitioner had
completed a twenty-eight-day outpatient drug rehabilitation program. However, petitioner tested
positive for methamphetamine and codeine on March 11, 2022, and agreed to enter a long-term
inpatient drug rehabilitation program. The court initially held a dispositional hearing in March of
2022 but continued the dispositional hearing to allow petitioner to enter a long-term inpatient drug
rehabilitation program.

         At a June of 2022 dispositional hearing, petitioner did not appear, but counsel represented
her and proffered that petitioner was then-enrolled in a twenty-eight-day inpatient drug
rehabilitation program, so she was unavailable to attend the hearing. The worker stated that
petitioner went on vacation to the Bahamas, which resulted in several missed visits with the
children and delayed her seeking inpatient drug treatment. The DHHR also presented evidence
that petitioner tested positive for codeine and nonprescribed suboxone after completing a twenty-
eight-day inpatient drug rehabilitation program. Based on the evidence, the court found that
petitioner had not addressed her substance abuse addiction, noting that petitioner completed
several twenty-eight-day rehabilitation programs but immediately relapsed with
methamphetamine and opiate use after each program. The court found that petitioner had not
benefited from services and lacked the motivation to fully address the conditions of abuse and
neglect. As such, the court found that there was no reasonable likelihood that petitioner could
substantially correct the conditions of abuse and neglect in the near future and that the children’s
welfare required termination of her parental rights. The court then terminated petitioner’s parental
rights.3 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). Petitioner first alleges that the circuit court erred
in finding that she had not successfully completed the terms and conditions of her improvement
periods. We have held:

                At 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.

       3
        The father is participating in an improvement period, and the permanency plan for the
children is reunification with him.
                                                  2
Syl. Pt. 6, In Int. of Carlita B., 185 W. Va. 613, 616, 408 S.E.2d 365, 368 (1991).
       Notably, petitioner does not allege that she fully addressed her substance abuse, which was
the primary goal of her case plan and the primary purpose of her various improvement periods.
Additionally, on appeal, petitioner concedes that she was not ready to regain custody of the
children as she needed more time to “work on her issues” and rectify “problems.” While petitioner
completed several short-term inpatient drug rehabilitation programs and complied with some
aspects of the case plan, the record shows that she relapsed several times, including shortly before
the final dispositional hearing. Therefore, petitioner had not satisfied the condition of her
improvement period that she maintain sobriety. Accordingly, we agree with the circuit court’s
finding that she failed to successfully complete the terms and conditions of her post-adjudicatory
improvement period and the various extensions thereof.4

         This same evidence supports the circuit court’s termination of petitioner’s parental rights.
Petitioner takes issue with the court’s findings that there was no reasonable likelihood that the
conditions of abuse and neglect could be substantially corrected in the near future and contends
that the circuit court did not choose the least restrictive disposition when it terminated her parental
rights. However, petitioner fails to explain how the court erred in making this finding. Indeed,
petitioner received a plethora of services over nearly fifteen months, which do not include the
additional five months of the DHHR’s protective services provided to her prior to the filing of the
instant petition. Despite these extensive services, petitioner exercised poor judgement by going on
vacation immediately prior to the final dispositional hearing, further delaying her entry into an
inpatient substance abuse treatment facility, and by not fully addressing her recent relapse.
Importantly, “courts are not required to exhaust every speculative possibility of parental
improvement . . . where it appears that the welfare of the child[ren] will be seriously threatened.”
In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 98, 717 S.E.2d 873, 882 (2011). Ultimately, petitioner is not entitled
to relief because West Virginia Code § 49-4-604(c)(6) permits a circuit court to terminate parental
rights “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.” Syl. Pt. 5, In re Kristin Y., 227 W. Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55
(2011) (citation omitted). As such, we find no error in the termination of petitioner’s parental
rights.

       For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the decision of the circuit court, and its June
14, 2022, order is hereby affirmed.

                                                                                            Affirmed.

ISSUED: April 25, 2023

       4
        The Court further notes that petitioner was apparently awarded several extensions to her
post-adjudicatory improvement period, which is in contravention to Syl. Pt. 5, State ex rel. P.G.-1
v. Wilson, 247 W. Va. 235, 878 S.E.2d 730, 733 (2021) (holding that “West Virginia Code § 49-
4-610(6) (eff. 2015) authorizes only one extension of a post-adjudicatory improvement period”).
                                                  3
CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Justice Elizabeth D. Walker
Justice Tim Armstead
Justice John A. Hutchison
Justice William R. Wooton
Justice C. Haley Bunn

                                    4