In Re: J.M., E.A., and K.A.
17-0219
| W. Va. | Jun 19, 2017Background
- Mother drove on a suspended license with three young children (two in diapers) and crashed; she left the hospital without properly discharging and left two children (ages 1 and 4) unattended at the hospital for at least an hour.
- Hospital/EMS found minor or no injuries to the children; mother refused substance testing at the hospital and later tested positive for morphine in a DHHR-ordered screen.
- Mother had prior CPS involvement for leaving children unattended (at a gas station).
- Circuit court adjudicated the children abused/neglected by clear and convincing evidence based on mother’s conduct and leaving the children unattended.
- At disposition the DHHR and guardian recommended termination; mother failed to engage with services, failed to appear at hearings, provided no whereabouts updates, and never visited the children.
- Circuit court terminated mother’s parental rights; Court of Appeals affirmed termination but remanded because the permanency orders did not properly establish permanent placement for two children not biologically related to the nonoffending father who had custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (DHHR/Guardian/Respondent Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to adjudicate abuse/neglect | Mother: her accident injuries explain her hospital conduct; evidence insufficient to prove abuse/neglect by clear and convincing proof | DHHR: undisputed facts (suspended license, crash, leaving children unattended, prior similar conduct) support adjudication | Court: Evidence sufficient; finding not clearly erroneous |
| Entitlement to an improvement period before termination | Mother: she was not given services or an improvement period; cannot be terminated without opportunity to correct | DHHR: mother was given CPS contact and did not cooperate; her refusal and nonparticipation made an improvement period futile | Court: No improvement period required; statutory grounds for termination satisfied (no reasonable likelihood of correction) |
| Appropriateness of termination of parental rights | Mother: termination was premature given lack of services/improvement period | DHHR/guardian: termination appropriate given mother’s nonparticipation, failure to acknowledge problems, drug screen failure, and failure to visit | Court: Termination affirmed (best interests, continuity of care, statutory authorization) |
| Adequacy of permanency order and placement for all children | Mother (implicitly) and parties: appealed termination only; parties’ briefs lacked clear permanency statements | Guardian/DHHR/Respondent: varying, unclear statements about placement; some children stated placed with nonoffending father or his mother | Court: Remanded — permanency order deficient for E.A. and J.M. (not children of nonoffending father); order failed to make required findings for APPLA or other permanent placement |
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) (appellate review principles reiterated)
- In Interest of S.C., 168 W.Va. 366, 284 S.E.2d 867 (1981) (DHHR burden to prove conditions by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Joseph A., 199 W.Va. 438, 485 S.E.2d 176 (1997) (definitions and evidentiary standards for neglected child)
- In re Katie S., 198 W.Va. 1, 479 S.E.2d 589 (1996) (termination may be used without less-restrictive alternatives when no reasonable likelihood of correction)
- In re Kaitlyn P., 225 W.Va. 123, 690 S.E.2d 131 (2010) (failure to acknowledge problem can make improvement period futile)
- James M. v. Maynard, 185 W.Va. 648, 408 S.E.2d 400 (1991) (guardian’s duties continue until child placed in permanent home)
- In re Timber M., 231 W.Va. 44, 743 S.E.2d 352 (2013) (court may address unraised issues sua sponte in child-welfare matters)