In Re: C.M. and S.H.
16-1185
| W. Va. | Jun 9, 2017Background
- DHHR filed abuse-and-neglect petitions in July 2014 alleging petitioner mother (C.H.) had substance abuse issues and domestic violence affecting her parenting.
- Petitioner stipulated to neglect in September 2014, received a six-month improvement period that was later extended; she failed to comply with court-ordered drug screens, therapy, and treatment.
- In October 2015 petitioner obtained an alternative disposition (Disposition 5 — guardianship) but DHHR/guardian moved to modify after petitioner’s October 2015 arrest where heroin was found and she was staying with the children’s father, J.H.
- At the January 2016 final hearing, after consulting counsel, petitioner (then represented) voluntarily relinquished her parental rights; the court informed her she would have no right to visitation or control over adoption, and she acknowledged understanding those consequences.
- Circuit court accepted the voluntary relinquishment by order entered March 11, 2016; petitioner later sought new counsel and, in August 2016, filed a motion (styled "reconsideration") claiming the relinquishment was procured by fraud or duress because she believed she would still be allowed visitation.
- The circuit court held a hearing in October 2016 and denied the motion; petitioner appealed, arguing the relinquishment was not voluntary. The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no evidence of fraud or duress.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner’s voluntary relinquishment was procured by fraud or duress | Petitioner: relinquishment was coerced/misunderstood because she believed she would be allowed visitation after relinquishment | DHHR/guardian: petitioner was informed she would have no visitation or control over adoption and she acknowledged that understanding on the record | Court: Relinquishment was voluntary; no evidence of fraud or duress; denial of reconsideration affirmed |
| Whether the court properly adjudicated voluntariness under W.Va. Code § 49-4-607 | Petitioner: statutory protection against relinquishments obtained by duress/fraud should invalidate agreement | DHHR/guardian: statutory standard satisfied; circuit court made factual findings that accord with the record | Court: Circuit court’s factual finding that agreement was free from duress/fraud is not clearly erroneous |
| Whether a former parent may seek relief via a "motion for reconsideration" in abuse-and-neglect proceedings | Petitioner: sought to withdraw/alter relinquishment via motion below | Respondents: procedural rules limit post-termination motions; case treated as Rose v. Pancake motion to litigate voluntariness | Court: Treated filing as Rose v. Pancake motion; substantive relief denied on merits |
| Whether the appellate court should overturn factual findings regarding voluntariness | Petitioner: appellate relief warranted because record supports involuntariness | Respondents: standard of review requires deference; findings plausible on record | Court: Applied clearly-erroneous standard and affirmed circuit court findings |
Key Cases Cited
- In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (standard of review for bench-found facts in abuse-and-neglect cases)
- State ex rel. Rose L. v. Pancake, 209 W.Va. 188, 544 S.E.2d 403 (2001) (circuit court may hold hearing to determine whether relinquishment was free from duress or fraud)
- In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (reiteration of standard of review and deference to circuit court factfinding)