In Re: C.A. and R.A.
16-0473
| W. Va. | Feb 21, 2017Background
- DHHR filed abuse-and-neglect petition (Jan 2014) alleging petitioner mother exposed children to domestic violence and there was substance abuse in the home; petitioner initially obtained then dismissed a protective order after reconciling and marrying the alleged perpetrator.
- Petitioner stipulated at adjudication to exposing the children to domestic violence and received a post-adjudicatory improvement period; children were later moved from a relative to foster care when the relative’s placement failed.
- Throughout the case petitioner repeatedly tested positive for controlled substances, left court-ordered long-term inpatient treatment voluntarily, and claimed prescriptions that her provider could not verify.
- Court findings at disposition (Apr 2016): petitioner failed to obtain suitable housing, remained in an unstable parenting/romantic relationship (still married to the perpetrator), and had not made reasonable progress to correct abuse/neglect conditions.
- Circuit court terminated petitioner’s parental, custodial, and guardianship rights; petitioner appealed claiming insufficient evidence and an improper burden-shift.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner’s Argument | DHHR/Circuit Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHHR proved grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence | Petitioner: DHHR failed to prove no reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected; she had complied sufficiently for reunification | DHHR: petitioner’s persistent substance abuse, failure to complete treatment, and continued relationship with perpetrator showed conditions persisted and case plan was not followed | Affirmed: evidence supported finding no reasonable likelihood of substantial correction and termination was proper |
| Whether circuit court impermissibly shifted burden of proof to petitioner | Petitioner: court required her to disprove abuse/neglect, violating due process | DHHR: burden remained with DHHR and record shows DHHR carried it; petitioner’s rebuttal attempts do not prove burden shift | Affirmed: no improper burden shift; DHHR met its burden |
| Whether petitioner made reasonable progress under West Virginia Code to avoid termination | Petitioner: argued progress sufficient | DHHR/Court: petitioner failed multiple benchmarks (treatment, housing, stable parenting) | Affirmed: petitioner did not make reasonable progress |
| Appropriateness of termination as remedy for children’s welfare | Petitioner: reunification appropriate | DHHR/Court: termination necessary for children’s welfare given ongoing risks | Affirmed: termination warranted to protect children |
Key Cases Cited
- In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (standard of review for circuit-court factual findings in abuse/neglect cases)
- In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (review standard applied to adjudicated abuse/neglect findings)
- In Interest of S.C., 168 W.Va. 366, 284 S.E.2d 867 (1981) (DHHR’s burden to prove conditions existing at filing by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Joseph A., 199 W.Va. 438, 485 S.E.2d 176 (1997) (statutory discussion of DHHR burden in child abuse/neglect cases)
- In re K.L., 233 W.Va. 547, 759 S.E.2d 778 (2014) (burden of proof remains with DHHR throughout proceedings)