In Re: D.W., G.D., and D.D.
16-0895
W. Va.Jun 2, 2017Background
- DHHR filed an abuse-and-neglect petition in March 2016 in Webster County alleging petitioner abandoned her son D.W., who had been in guardians’ custody and not seen by petitioner for ~9 years after she signed guardianship paperwork.
- DHHR later filed an amended petition adding two additional children, G.D. and D.D., who lived with their father in a different county; petitioner had weekend visitation with them.
- Petitioner waived a preliminary hearing and, at adjudication, admitted certain allegations and an extended history of prescription drug use but reserved the legal argument that the facts did not amount to abuse or neglect.
- The circuit court adjudicated petitioner an "abusing parent," finding abandonment as to D.W. and concluding petitioner was addicted to controlled substances; petitioner appealed.
- The West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the adjudication as to D.W. (abandonment) but held the circuit court lacked venue to adjudicate G.D. and D.D. in Webster County and reversed/remanded as to those children, instructing DHHR to file new petitions where venue lies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Petitioner) | Defendant's Argument (DHHR) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Webster County was proper venue for amended petition adding G.D. and D.D. | Amendment improperly expanded venue; petitioner had no connection to Webster County for those children. | Rule 19 permits amendment to add new allegations/parties during proceedings; amendment was proper. | Reversed as to G.D. and D.D.; statutory venue controls and Webster County lacked venue for those children; DHHR must file new petitions where venue properly lies. |
| Whether petitioner abandoned D.W. | Placement with guardians was intended temporary; retention of parental rights precluded abandonment. | Failure to visit for ~9 years and transfer of caretaking duties evidenced settled purpose to forego parental responsibilities. | Affirmed adjudication as to D.W.; conduct met statutory definition of abandonment. |
| Whether Rule 19 amendment power overrides statutory venue requirements | N/A | Rule 19(a)/(b) allows amendment, and new allegations should be added to existing petition rather than new petitions. | Rejected: Rule 19 does not supplant statutory venue in W. Va. Code § 49-4-601(a); rules cannot enlarge legislatively prescribed venue. |
| Whether adjudication could rest on petitioner’s admitted controlled-substance use | Petitioner argued substance use did not warrant abuse/neglect adjudication. | DHHR relied in part on extended prescription drug use as evidence of neglect/addiction. | Court did not decide substance-use-based adjudication because reversal on venue for two children made addressing that argument unnecessary; affirmed abandonment-based adjudication for D.W. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (standard of review for abuse-and-neglect findings; trial-court fact findings not set aside unless clearly erroneous)
- In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W. Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (appellate review deferential to plausible trial-court account of evidence)
- State v. Michael M., 202 W. Va. 350, 504 S.E.2d 177 (1998) (permanency/placement priority for adoption when in child’s best interests)
- James M. v. Maynard, 185 W. Va. 648, 408 S.E.2d 400 (1991) (guardian ad litem’s role continues until child is placed in a permanent home)
- Hansbarger v. Cook, 177 W. Va. 152, 351 S.E.2d 65 (1986) (venue is a personal privilege that may be waived)
- State ex rel. Riffle v. Ranson, 195 W. Va. 121, 464 S.E.2d 763 (1995) (court must interpret, not expand, legislatively enacted venue statutes)