Court Opinion

ID: 9960345
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-15 21:18:11.621014+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:22.503452
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 A.O., D.T., and E.C., Jr.

No. 22-933 (Ohio County CC-35-2021-JA-57, CC-35-2021-JA-58, and CC-35-2021-JA-60)

                              MEMORANDUM DECISION

         Petitioner Grandfather D.L.1 appeals the Circuit Court of Ohio County’s December 2,
2022, order denying his motion to intervene, for temporary and permanent placement, and for
visitation regarding the children, A.O., D.T., and E.C., Jr.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 May 2021, the DHS filed a petition alleging abuse and neglect by the mother of the
children and each of their respective fathers. The mother’s parental rights were terminated in
December 2021, and each of the fathers’ parental rights remain intact.3 Petitioner is the maternal
grandfather of the children, and, in January 2022, petitioner sent a self-represented letter to the

       1
        Petitioner appears by counsel Amy Pigg Shafer. The West Virginia Department of Human
Services appears by counsel Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and Assistant Attorney General
Lee A. Niezgoda. Counsel Michael B. Baum 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).
       3
         According to respondents, the fathers of A.O. and D.T. are currently participating in an
improvement period. The permanency plan for these children is reunification with their respective
fathers or adoption by foster placement. The father of E.C. successfully completed an improvement
period. This child was reunified with his father, and the two were dismissed from the proceeding.

                                                 1
circuit court seeking custody of the children. The court considered the letter to be a motion to
intervene and set the matter for hearing.

        Prior to the hearing, the guardian submitted a report noting that the children resided with
the mother and the father of E.C. at the time the petition was filed. Several months prior, the
children periodically resided with petitioner on a temporary basis while the mother was
incarcerated. The guardian further indicated that during a forensic interview, the oldest child, A.O.,
disclosed physical and sexual abuse by petitioner. The child revealed that petitioner would pour
hot sauce in his mouth and hit him with a belt as forms of punishment and that petitioner touched
the child’s penis and the child saw petitioner touch his own penis. The foster parents reported to
the guardian that A.O. had nightmares of petitioner locking him in a dark basement and that one
of the younger children, D.T., said petitioner “likes to tickle me down there” referring to her
vagina. The youngest child, E.C., was too young to make any statements. When the petition was
filed against the parents, the children were placed with the maternal great-grandmother,
petitioner’s mother, on the condition that petitioner would not have contact with the children based
on A.O.’s disclosures in the forensic interview. Although petitioner was aware of this condition of
placement, a DHS worker discovered him residing in the great-grandmother’s home with the
children. Upon learning that petitioner had had contact with the children, the DHS removed the
children from the home. Petitioner attempted to interfere with removal by chasing the worker and
the children out of the home and pulling D.T. from the vehicle.

        Also prior to the hearing, the DHS filed “[DHS]’s Objection to Motion to Intervene, Obtain
Placement, and for Visitation,” which addressed each of petitioner’s self-represented “motions” as
interpreted by the DHS. Petitioner, through counsel, filed a response, addressing each of his
motions and confirming that petitioner sought intervention, temporary and permanent placement,
and visitation. Petitioner conceded that the request for permanent placement was not ripe as the
children’s fathers were at different stages in the proceedings and had not lost their parental rights;
however, he asserted his wishes to be considered for permanent placement at the appropriate time.

        At a hearing on petitioner’s motion to intervene, for temporary and permanent placement,
and for visitation held before Judge Jason Cuomo in April 2022, petitioner testified, claiming that
the mother gave him custodial rights that he exercised continually from August 2018 until January
2021. Petitioner denied all claims of physical and sexual abuse, although he admitted to scaring
the children with a belt and disciplining them using hot sauce. Regarding petitioner’s criminal
history, he admitted to two prior drug charges, but denied any domestic violence or sexual abuse
charges and insisted that there were no current pending criminal matters against him. A police
officer testified that after an investigation into the sexual abuse allegations against petitioner, no
criminal charges resulted.

        At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court interviewed the children in chambers.
Although the children described petitioner as mean, the court found that the children were not
afraid of him. The court then granted petitioner phone and video visitation. Following the April
2022 hearing, a DHS worker approached the judge about his ruling outside the courthouse,
expressing disagreement with the granted visitation. Due to this interaction, counsel for the DHS
requested that the judge recuse himself and reassign the case. The DHS expressed its need to call
the worker as a witness and argued that the conversation between the judge and the worker would

                                                  2
interfere with the integrity of the proceeding. Despite petitioner’s objection, Judge Cuomo recused
himself, and the matter was reassigned to Judge Ronald Wilson for the remainder of the
proceedings.

        A second evidentiary hearing on petitioner’s motion was held in September 2022, at which
time the DHS presented its witnesses and evidence. A DHS worker testified that the DHS had
considered petitioner as a placement option at the time the petition was filed against the parents;
however, under the DHS placement policy, it was determined that petitioner would be an
inappropriate placement option because of his extensive criminal history, which included charges
for drugs, domestic violence, and sexual abuse. The DHS worker stated that petitioner lied about
his criminal history on their self-disclosure statement, which dishonesty further confirmed he
would be inappropriate for placement. Evidence revealed that at the time of the April 2022 hearing
there was a warrant out for petitioner’s arrest regarding a credit card fraud charge and his failure
to appear at a hearing regarding the same. The evidence further showed petitioner’s involvement
in a domestic violence case in 2002 and a sexual abuse case in 1999. The DHS maintained concerns
about petitioner because of the statements made by the children and because he resided in the
great-grandmother’s home despite the condition that he was to have no contact with the children.
The children’s foster placement testified about the children’s behavior since being in their care.
The foster father described instances in which he would change D.T.’s diaper and she would try
to pull his hand down to her vaginal area and say, “papa tickles me here.” The foster father further
discussed A.O.’s fear of belts and reoccurring nightmares of being locked in a dark basement by
petitioner. The children were enrolled in therapy and were making progress; however, the foster
father stated that their behavior worsened after the video visits with petitioner. The court then
proceeded to hear additional testimony by petitioner. Notably, he stated that if he were granted
custody, he would allow the children to see their mother, whose parental rights were terminated,
even though he believes “she is disturbed” and needs to be “on medicine.” Following the hearing,
the court ordered an investigation pursuant to West Virginia Code § 48-9-301(a), which grants
courts discretion to “order a written investigation and report to assist it in determining any issue
relevant to proceedings under this article.” The investigator filed the report in November 2022.

        The circuit court issued a final order in December 2022, denying petitioner’s motions and
prohibiting contact between him and the children. The court determined that petitioner was not a
relative caregiver entitled to an opportunity to be heard in this matter. The court found that the
DHS did consider petitioner for relative placement but determined he did not qualify under its
policies. The court further found the evidence in the record did not support visitation and that it
would not be in the children’s best interests and would substantially interfere with a future parent-
child relationship. It is from this 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 raises several
assignments of error. First, petitioner argues that the circuit court erred in concluding that he was
not a relative caregiver with a right to be heard under West Virginia Code § 49-4-601(h); see also
State ex rel. H.S. v. Beane, 240 W. Va. 643, 647, 814 S.E.2d 660, 664 (2018) (permitting relative
caregivers, among others, “a meaningful opportunity to be heard” under the “two-tiered
framework” established by § 49-4-601(h)). Below, the court correctly found that petitioner did not

                                                  3
meet the definition of relative caregiver, as petitioner admitted that he was not a relative caregiver
at the time the petition was filed. Indeed, the record shows that any care petitioner alleged that he
provided occurred three months prior to the petition and was temporary and intermittent.
Therefore, petitioner did not have a statutory right to be heard.

        Next, petitioner argues that the circuit court erred in denying his requests for temporary
and permanent placement of his grandchildren. Petitioner is correct that both West Virginia Code
§§ 49-4-601a and 114(a)(3) provide preferences for placement with relatives and grandparents,
respectively. However, petitioner would have this Court adhere to these preferences despite
overwhelming evidence that petitioner presented a threat to the children’s wellbeing. As the record
shows, the DHS met its obligation to consider petitioner under these statutes until further inquiry
revealed his criminal history, his dishonesty about the same, and the concerning disclosures by the
children, including sexual abuse allegations. As we have explained, “[t]he [grandparent]
preference is just that—a preference. It is not absolute . . . the child’s best interest remains
paramount.” In re K.E., 240 W. Va. 220, 225, 809 S.E.2d 531, 536 (2018). Simply stated, “[t]he
grandparent preference must be considered in conjunction with our long standing jurisprudence
that ‘the primary goal in cases involving abuse and neglect . . . must be the health and welfare of
the children.’” In re Hunter H., 227 W. Va. 699, 703, 715 S.E.2d 397, 401 (2011) (citation
omitted). The circuit court found that the DHS’s determination that petitioner was unsuitable for
placement was reasonable and consistent with the children’s best interests. Upon our review of the
record, we can discern no error in the circuit court’s decision.

         Petitioner additionally argues that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for
grandparent visitation made pursuant to West Virginia Code § 48-10-301. However, such
visitation is only appropriate when a court determines “that visitation would be in the best interests
of the child and would not substantially interfere with the parent-child relationship.” Id. § 48-10-
501. While petitioner attacks the court’s findings in regard to the factors outlined in West Virginia
Code § 48-10-502, it is unnecessary to undertake an analysis of these factors in light of the
children’s disclosures of petitioner’s sexual and physical abuse. Because continued visits with
petitioner clearly would not be in the children’s best interests, we find no error by the circuit court.4

        Lastly, petitioner argues that the circuit court erred when it reassigned the case to a new
judge when the evidentiary hearing on petitioner’s motions was incomplete and the previous judge
had the opportunity to hear petitioner’s testimony, observe his demeanor, and interview the
children. However, we find no merit to this argument as it was within the circuit court judge’s
discretion to disqualify himself when his impartiality may be reasonably questioned. See Patton v.
Cnty. of Berkeley, 242 W. Va. 315, 319, 835 S.E.2d 559, 563 (2019) (“The matter of judicial
recusal and disqualification is a matter of discretion reposed solely in the presiding judge and the
Chief Justice of this Court.” (citation omitted)). Further, contrary to petitioner’s argument, Judge

        4
        To the extent petitioner argues that the circuit court erred by not holding a hearing on the
DHS’s motion to terminate the phone and video visitation, and by refusing to entertain testimony
regarding the scope of video visitations, we find this issue moot as the DHS sought a ruling
regarding temporary visits, and the court ultimately denied any permanent visitation based on the
evidence presented.

                                                   4
Wilson reviewed the record of the first evidentiary hearing and heard further testimony of
petitioner and could therefore observe petitioner’s demeanor at the second evidentiary hearing.
Therefore, there is no evidence of any prejudice to petitioner.5

        Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the decision of the circuit court,
and its December 2, 2022, 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

DISSENTING:

Justice C. Haley Bunn

Bunn, Justice, dissenting:

        I dissent to the majority’s resolution of this case. I would have set this case for oral
argument to thoroughly address the errors alleged in this appeal. Having reviewed the parties’
briefs and the issues raised therein, I believe a formal opinion of this Court was warranted, not a
memorandum decision. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

       5
        Petitioner raises an additional assignment of error, arguing that the circuit court erred
when it appointed an investigator to conduct a court-ordered investigation pursuant to West
Virginia Code § 48-9-301 without further hearing to allow petitioner to cross-examine the
investigator. As this Court has recognized, “[m]ost errors, including constitutional ones are subject
to harmless error analysis.” State ex. Rel. Waldron v. Scott, 222 W. Va. 122, 126, 663 S.E.2d 576,
580 (2008). Upon our review of the record, there is no question that any error alleged in this regard
is harmless, as there is no evidence that the circuit court considered the investigator’s report in
reaching its final ruling.
                                                  5