In Re: B.N.
16-1098
| W. Va. | May 22, 2017Background
- DHHR filed an abuse-and-neglect petition after newborn B.N. exhibited signs of neonatal withdrawal and mother admitted drug use during pregnancy; mother had prior involuntary terminations.
- Petitioner Father (L.N.) initially withheld his residence address from CPS and later provided a relative’s address; DHHR placed the child with maternal relatives.
- At an MDT meeting petitioner (with counsel) agreed to provide drug-screen results rather than submit on-site screens but later failed to produce them; DHHR received referrals alleging petitioner abused prescription medication.
- DHHR amended the petition to allege petitioner’s refusal to provide an address, failure to submit drug screens, and a recent domestic violence arrest involving the mother.
- Circuit court ratified emergency custody, ordered petitioner to submit to drug screens, found probable cause, adjudicated the child neglected after petitioner failed to appear and to comply, and later terminated petitioner’s parental rights after he again failed to appear and submitted only one drug screen (positive for marijuana).
- petitioner appealed claiming insufficient evidence to ratify the amended petition and to support adjudication/disposition, and that ordering drug screens violated his due process rights; the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (L.N.) | Defendant's Argument (DHHR / Guardian) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of amended petition / ratification of emergency custody | Amended petition was deficient, filed after delay, allegations didn’t relate back; no probable cause to ratify emergency custody | Amended petition alleged refusal to provide address, failure to comply with agreed drug screens, and domestic-violence arrest; these justified emergency custody | Court: Petition and evidence provided probable cause; ratification proper |
| Sufficiency of evidence at adjudication/disposition | Preliminary hearing evidence was insufficient; later findings lacked evidentiary basis | Petitioner failed to appear, failed to comply with ordered drug screens, delayed giving address, and had domestic-violence arrest; DHHR proved neglect by clear and convincing evidence | Court: Adjudication and termination supported by clear and convincing evidence; no error |
| Due process challenge to drug-screen order | Ordering drug screens absent explicit allegations of substance abuse violated due process | DHHR had numerous referrals alleging prescription-drug abuse and petitioner had agreed (with counsel) to screening | Court: No due process violation; agreement plus referrals justified testing |
| Procedural relief (mandamus) / mootness | Petitioner sought writ of mandamus to place child with him (unclear ruling) | DHHR points out no timely appeal and subsequent termination renders the issue moot | Court: Any mandamus issue rendered moot by changed circumstances (termination) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (W. Va. 2011) (standard of review for circuit-court factual findings in abuse/neglect cases)
- In re Joseph A., 199 W.Va. 438, 485 S.E.2d 176 (W. Va. 1997) (DHHR burden to prove conditions at time of filing by clear and convincing evidence)
- In Interest of S.C., 168 W.Va. 366, 284 S.E.2d 867 (W. Va. 1981) (manner of proof for DHHR’s burden not strictly prescribed)
- In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (W. Va. 1996) (appellate review standard reiterated for abuse/neglect findings)