In re A.S.-1, C.S., E.S., and J.S. ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                       FILED
    April 14, 2022
    EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK
    STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA                              SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
    OF WEST VIRGINIA
    SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
    In re A.S.-1, C.S., E.S., and J.S.
    No. 21-0837 (Kanawha County 19-JA-607, 19-JA-608, 19-JA-609, and 19-JA-610)
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Petitioner Mother A.S.-2, by counsel Sandra K. Bullman, appeals the Circuit Court of
    Kanawha County’s September 17, 2021, order terminating her parental rights to A.S.-1, C.S., E.S.,
    and J.S. 1 The West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (“DHHR”), by counsel
    Patrick Morrisey and Mindy M. Parsley, filed a response in support of the circuit court’s order.
    The guardian ad litem (“guardian”), Bryan B. Escue, filed a response on behalf of the children also
    in support of the circuit court’s order. On appeal, petitioner argues that the circuit court erred in
    denying her motion for a post-adjudicatory improvement period and terminating her parental
    rights.
    This Court has considered the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal
    arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided
    by oral argument. Upon consideration of the standard of review, the briefs, and the record
    presented, the Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these reasons,
    a memorandum decision affirming the circuit court’s order is appropriate under Rule 21 of the
    Rules of Appellate Procedure.
    In September of 2019, the DHHR filed a child abuse and neglect petition alleging that
    petitioner exposed the children to domestic violence, substance abuse, and dangerous conditions
    inside the home. The DHHR alleged that it received a referral that law enforcement officials
    attempted to enter the parents’ 2 home during a domestic violence altercation that involved the use
    1
    Consistent with our long-standing practice in cases with sensitive facts, we use initials
    where necessary to protect the identities of those involved in this case. See In re K.H., 
    235 W. Va. 254
    , 
    773 S.E.2d 20
     (2015); Melinda H. v. William R. II, 
    230 W. Va. 731
    , 
    742 S.E.2d 419
     (2013);
    State v. Brandon B., 
    218 W. Va. 324
    , 
    624 S.E.2d 761
     (2005); State v. Edward Charles L., 
    183 W. Va. 641
    , 
    398 S.E.2d 123
     (1990). Additionally, because one of the children and petitioner share the
    same initials, they will be referred to as A.S.-1 and A.S.-2, respectively, throughout this
    memorandum decision.
    2
    Petitioner is the mother of all four children. At the time, all the children lived with
    petitioner and the father of A.S.-1 and C.S.
    1
    of a firearm, but that petitioner denied them entry to the home upon their arrival. The DHHR
    alleged that petitioner was arrested for obstruction in connection with the incident. According to
    the petition, the children, then between the ages of three and eight years old, were at the home
    when the domestic violence altercations occurred. The DHHR alleged that the children often
    stayed at a great-grandmother’s residence as a result of the parents’ frequent domestic violence.
    The DHHR alleged that the father was out of incarceration pursuant to a bond at the time of the
    petition. According to the petition, the father was arrested for stealing a birthday cake and
    assaulting an employee at a local restaurant. The DHHR also alleged that the father was involved
    in an altercation with petitioner over her involvement with another man. The father and the other
    man were also involved in an altercation, including the use of firearms, inside the parents’ home.
    According to the petition, a Child Protective Services (“CPS”) worker spoke to petitioner,
    who admitted that she had domestic violence altercations with the father and that law enforcement
    officers were at their home as a result. Petitioner informed the CPS worker that the father was
    serving home incarceration, admitted that she was still in a relationship with him, and stated that
    she intended to stay in her relationship. Petitioner denied that she or the father engaged in substance
    abuse and denied that the children had been exposed to domestic violence in the home. Next, the
    CPS worker interviewed J.S., then eight years old, who denied witnessing domestic violence in
    the home but acknowledged that the parents often fought. The child further denied witnessing
    substance abuse and stated that he felt safe inside the home. The CPS worker also interviewed
    C.S., then four years old, who disclosed that the parents often fought, and that petitioner would
    contact law enforcement during the altercations. The CPS worker also spoke to a family relative
    who stated that the father was “very violent.” The relative disclosed that the father physically
    abused petitioner on multiple prior occasions and that while the children would be safe with
    petitioner, they would not be safe around the father. According to the petition, another relative
    stated that the father had been arrested on several occasions for violent crimes. Finally, the CPS
    worker interviewed the father, who denied substance abuse and physical domestic violence inside
    the home. He stated that petitioner and he were separated at the time, but that petitioner still
    allowed the children to visit with him often. The DHHR also included a chronological list of
    domestic violence arrests and other incident reports involving both parents in the petition. The next
    month, petitioner waived her preliminary hearing, and the circuit court ordered the DHHR to
    provide petitioner with services and ordered petitioner to have no contact with the father.
    After several continuances and hearings, the circuit court held an adjudicatory hearing in
    August of 2020 wherein petitioner moved the court to grant her a preadjudicatory improvement
    period. The DHHR and guardian objected to the motion, which the circuit court denied. A CPS
    worker testified in support of the allegations in the petition. Specifically, the worker testified that
    petitioner admitted that she was the victim of domestic violence by the father of A.S.-1 and C.S.
    The worker also stated that petitioner admitted that law enforcement was often at her home in
    relation to domestic violence incidents between her and the father. Finally, the worker testified
    that petitioner admitted that the father was serving home incarceration, that she remained in a
    relationship with the father, and that the children had witnessed domestic violence in the home.
    The circuit court also noted the children’s disclosures to the CPS worker and the chronological
    incident reports from law enforcement. As a result, the circuit court adjudicated petitioner as an
    abusing parent. Following her adjudication, the children were returned to petitioner’s physical
    custody on a trial basis.
    2
    In November of 2020, the circuit court held a hearing wherein the DHHR moved to
    terminate petitioner’s parental rights. The DHHR submitted a summary to the court that indicated
    petitioner had violated the no contact order by staying with the father on several occasions.
    According to the summary report, petitioner and the father had remained in a relationship together
    for periods of time over the last several months. After petitioner’s continued relationship with the
    father came to light, the DHHR again removed the children from petitioner’s home. The DHHR
    noted that the father had been arrested for burglary and attempting to disarm law enforcement since
    a prior hearing. The DHHR indicated that petitioner had been participating in some drug screens,
    and enrolled in domestic violence classes and parenting and life skills classes. According to the
    summary report, C.S. and J.S. indicated they did not wish to live with either parent.
    The circuit court held a final dispositional hearing in August of 2021 during which the
    DHHR renewed its motion to terminate petitioner’s parental rights. In support of its motion, the
    DHHR presented a summary report from the prior month indicating that petitioner was in a
    relationship with a new boyfriend, who had been arrested for domestic violence after an incident
    with her. According to the summary report, petitioner ceased participating in random drug screens
    and was only sporadically attending her parenting and adult life skills classes. Further, a CPS
    worker testified that petitioner continued to involve herself in domestic violence relationships and
    was noncompliant with services.
    At the conclusion of the dispositional hearing, the circuit court found that petitioner failed
    to make sufficient efforts to rectify the conditions of abuse and neglect and follow through with
    the case plan and other services. Ultimately, the court found that there was no reasonable likelihood
    that petitioner could correct the conditions of abuse and neglect in the near future and that
    termination of her parental rights was necessary for the children’s welfare. The court terminated
    petitioner’s parental rights by order entered on September 17, 2021. It is from this dispositional
    order that she now appeals. 3
    The Court has previously established the following standard of review:
    “Although conclusions of law reached by a circuit court are subject to de
    novo review, when an action, such as an abuse and neglect case, is tried upon the
    facts without a jury, the circuit court shall make a determination based upon the
    evidence and shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether such
    child is abused or neglected. These findings shall not be set aside by a reviewing
    court unless clearly erroneous. A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there
    is evidence to support the finding, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left
    with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. However,
    a reviewing court may not overturn a finding simply because it would have decided
    the case differently, and it must affirm a finding if the circuit court’s account of the
    3
    A.S.-1 and C.S.’s father’s parental rights were terminated below. E.S. and J.S.’s father
    voluntarily relinquished his parental rights below. The permanency plan for A.S.-1 and E.S. is
    adoption in their respective foster homes. The permanency plan for C.S. and J.S. is adoption by
    their aunt.
    3
    evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety.” Syl. Pt. 1, In
    Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 
    196 W.Va. 223
    , 
    470 S.E.2d 177
     (1996).
    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 her a post-adjudicatory
    improvement period because she “complied with services and was making progress.” Petitioner
    contends that she was struggling as a victim of domestic violence and that she had demonstrated
    that she wanted to end her relationship with the father of A.S.-1 and C.S., who had physically
    harmed her. Petitioner points to her participation in parenting and domestic violence classes as
    evidence of this. As such, petitioner asserts that she showed sufficient improvement to warrant the
    granting of an improvement period. Upon our review, we find that petitioner is entitled to no relief.
    West Virginia Code § 49-4-610(2)(B) provides that the circuit court may grant a parent a
    post-adjudicatory improvement period when the parent “demonstrates, by clear and convincing
    evidence, that the [parent] is likely to fully participate in the improvement period.” “This Court
    has explained that ‘an improvement period in the context of abuse and neglect proceedings is
    viewed as an opportunity for the . . . parent to modify his/her behavior so as to correct the
    conditions of abuse and/or neglect with which he/she has been charged.’” In re Kaitlyn P., 
    225 W. Va. 123
    , 126, 
    690 S.E.2d 131
    , 134 (2010) (citation omitted). However, the circuit court has
    discretion to deny an improvement period when no improvement is likely. See In re Tonjia M.,
    
    212 W. Va. 443
    , 448, 
    573 S.E.2d 354
    , 359 (2002).
    While petitioner avers that she showed some compliance with services, the record shows
    that petitioner failed to show sufficient compliance throughout the proceedings to warrant the
    granting of an improvement period. As noted above, petitioner was provided with services aimed
    at correcting her issues with allowing inappropriate partners around the children. However, the
    DHHR removed the children from petitioner’s home during the proceedings after she continued
    exposing the children to inappropriate individuals such that it endangered the children. While
    petitioner claims that she wanted to end her relationship with the father of A.S.-1 and C.S., she
    also entered into a relationship with a new partner, who was also arrested for domestic violence.
    As such, the evidence put forth by the DHHR belies petitioner’s claims that she was ending her
    relationships with inappropriate partners. This is a credibility determination that we decline to
    disturb on appeal. Michael D.C. v. Wanda L.C., 
    201 W. Va. 381
    , 388, 
    497 S.E.2d 531
    , 538 (1997)
    (“A reviewing court cannot assess witness credibility through a record. The trier of fact is uniquely
    situated to make such determinations and this Court is not in a position to, and will not, second
    guess such determinations.”).
    Further, petitioner ceased fully participating in drug screens as well as her parenting and
    adult life skills classes. As such, by continuing to involve herself in violent relationships and only
    sporadically participating in services, petitioner has failed to make any substantial changes to her
    circumstances despite the DHHR’s prior interventions and services. Therefore, it is clear that
    petitioner was unlikely to fully participate in an improvement period, and we therefore find no
    error in the circuit court’s decision.
    4
    We similarly find no error in the termination of petitioner’s parental rights, given that West
    Virginia Code § 49-4-604(c)(6) permits termination of parental rights when there is no reasonable
    likelihood that the conditions of abuse can be substantially corrected in the near future and when
    termination of parental rights is necessary for the children’s welfare. According to West Virginia
    Code § 49-4-604(d)(3), a situation in which there is no reasonable likelihood that the conditions
    of abuse and neglect can be substantially corrected in the near future includes when “[t]he abusing
    parent . . . ha[s] 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.” Here, the evidence overwhelmingly supports
    this finding, as set forth above. Moreover, this Court has held that
    “[t]ermination 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). As such, we find that the circuit
    court did not err in terminating petitioner’s parental rights.
    For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the decision of the circuit court, and its
    September 17, 2021, order is hereby affirmed.
    Affirmed.
    ISSUED: April 14, 2022
    CONCURRED IN BY:
    Chief Justice John A. Hutchison
    Justice Elizabeth D. Walker
    Justice Tim Armstead
    Justice William R. Wooton
    Justice Alan D. Moats sitting by temporary assignment
    5