In re R.M. ( 2024 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                      FILED
    November 6, 2024
    C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK
    STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA                              SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
    SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS                                   OF WEST VIRGINIA
    In re R.M.
    No. 23-701 (Kanawha County 22-JA-502)
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Petitioner Mother K.W.1 appeals the Circuit Court of Kanawha County’s November 8,
    2023, order terminating her parental rights to R.M.,2 arguing that the circuit court erred in
    accepting her voluntary relinquishment. 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 November 2022, the DHS filed a petition alleging that the child was abused and
    neglected due to the petitioner’s drug abuse. According to the petition, the petitioner tested positive
    for multiple illegal substances, including fentanyl and marijuana, when the child was born; the
    petitioner admitted to using heroin during her pregnancy; and the child suffered withdrawal
    symptoms after his birth. Following the petitioner’s stipulated adjudication, the parties convened
    for a dispositional hearing in September 2023. The petitioner, who was represented by counsel,
    advised the circuit court that she wished to relinquish her parental rights to the child. In a sworn
    colloquy with the court, the petitioner confirmed that she was not threatened or promised anything
    in exchange for her relinquishment, understood that she was not required to relinquish her rights,
    and was entitled to have the DHS present its case against her. The petitioner also testified that she
    understood she was “giving up [her] rights” and that her decision was permanent and could not be
    reversed. Based on the petitioner’s testimony, the circuit court accepted the petitioner’s voluntary
    1
    The petitioner appears by counsel Barbara L. Baxter, who filed the brief in accordance
    with Rule 10(c)(10)(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure. The West Virginia
    Department of Human Services appears by counsel Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and
    Assistant Attorney General James Wegman. Counsel Joseph H. Spano Jr. appears as the child’s
    guardian ad litem.
    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).
    1
    relinquishment and terminated her parental rights.3 It is from the dispositional order that the
    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, the petitioner argues that it was
    erroneous for the circuit court to terminate her parental rights based on her voluntary
    relinquishment because “she should not have had to relinquish her parental rights.” Upon a review
    of the record, we find no error in the termination of the petitioner’s parental rights based on her
    voluntary relinquishment. We have held that
    [p]ursuant to Rule 35(a)(1) of the West Virginia Rules of Procedure for
    Child Abuse and Neglect, an oral voluntary relinquishment of parental rights is
    valid if the parent who chooses to relinquish is present in court and the court
    determines that the parent understands the consequences of a termination of
    parental rights, is aware of less drastic alternatives than termination, and is
    informed of the right to a hearing and to representation by counsel.
    Syl. Pt. 1, In re Tessla N.M., 
    211 W. Va. 334
    , 
    566 S.E.2d 221
     (2002). Here, the petitioner was
    present and represented by counsel at the hearing. The petitioner’s testimony confirmed that she
    understood the consequences of relinquishing her rights, the alternatives to termination, and her
    right to a hearing. Furthermore, the petitioner does not argue that she agreed to relinquish her
    parental rights as a result of fraud or duress, nor was there any evidence indicative of fraud or
    duress apparent from the record. See 
    id. at 339
    , 
    566 S.E.2d at 226
     (noting that “all agreements to
    terminate parental rights must be free from duress and fraud”). Accordingly, the petitioner is
    entitled to no relief.
    For the foregoing reasons, the circuit court’s November 8, 2023, order is hereby affirmed.
    Affirmed.
    ISSUED: November 6, 2024
    CONCURRED IN BY:
    Chief Justice Tim Armstead
    Justice Elizabeth D. Walker
    Justice John A. Hutchison
    Justice William R. Wooton
    Justice C. Haley Bunn
    3
    The father’s parental rights were also terminated. The permanency plan for the child is
    adoption in his current placement.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 23-701

Filed Date: 11/6/2024

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024