In Re: J.S. and C.S.
17-0017
W. Va.Jun 16, 2017Background
- DHHR filed an abuse and neglect petition (Aug 2016) alleging mother J.H. used/injected heroin in front of young children, left needles in the home, and had infected injection sites; a child reported seeing needles.
- Petitioner waived a preliminary hearing and, at adjudication (Oct 2016), stipulated to the abuse and neglect allegations.
- Guardian recommended termination after petitioner’s late-November incarceration on a felony controlled-substance-with-intent-to-deliver charge.
- At the December 2016 dispositional hearing the court denied petitioner’s motion for a post-adjudicatory improvement period; petitioner then, under oath, voluntarily relinquished parental rights and the court accepted and terminated those rights.
- The mother appealed only the denial of the improvement period; she did not claim her relinquishment was procured by fraud or duress and her appellate brief lacked record and legal citations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of a post-adjudicatory improvement period was error | J.H.: denial was erroneous and caused her to relinquish rights | DHHR/guardian: relinquishment was voluntary; petitioner lacks standing to seek modification after termination | Court: denial of improvement period need not be reached — petitioner voluntarily relinquished and did not allege fraud/duress; therefore no relief |
| Whether the relinquishment can be challenged on appeal | J.H.: seeks review of improvement-period denial to attack resulting termination | DHHR/guardian: challenge improper because relinquishment valid and relief requires showing fraud/duress; terminated parents lack standing to move to modify disposition | Court: only fraud/duress can invalidate voluntary relinquishment; petitioner made no such claim and lacks standing; appeal fails |
| Whether petitioner preserved record/briefing requirements for appellate review | J.H.: presented argument on appeal (but provided no record/legal citations) | DHHR/guardian: petitioner’s brief is inadequate under Rule 10(c)(7); Court may disregard unsupported errors | Court: petitioner’s brief was procedurally deficient; assignments of error not properly developed and warrant no relief |
| Whether a written motion for an improvement period was required | J.H.: sought post-adjudicatory improvement period at hearing (no written motion in record) | DHHR: West Virginia law requires a written motion before granting improvement period | Court: noted no written motion appears on record and statute requires one; procedural deficiency further undermines claim |
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-and-neglect cases)
- In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (stating appellate standard of review and related procedural guidance)
- In re Cesar L., 221 W.Va. 249, 654 S.E.2d 373 (2007) (voluntary relinquishment valid only if free from fraud or duress; terminated parents lack standing to seek modification)