827 S.E.2d 436
W. Va.2019Background
- DHHR filed abuse-and-neglect petitions in March 2016 removing three children (ages 7, 5, 4) from mother C.R.’s home due to her illegal drug use and domestic violence in the home involving her partner M.L.
- C.R. stipulated to the petition, admitted drug abuse and domestic violence, and was granted a post-adjudicatory improvement period (extended to permit substance treatment); she completed required services and the court found substantial compliance, though she remained on Subutex per medical direction.
- During the case the children showed ongoing trauma and fear of M.L.; C.R. continued her relationship with M.L., became pregnant by him, and gave birth to a fourth child while the termination proceeding was pending.
- At disposition the circuit court terminated C.R.’s parental rights to the three children, finding that despite compliance she had not remedied the underlying parental deficits (lack of engagement with children’s medical/therapeutic needs, no driver’s license, continued relationship with M.L., lack of insight into children’s fear).
- The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed termination as consistent with the children’s best interests but remanded because no abuse-and-neglect petition had been filed regarding the fourth child born after the prior terminations; statutory and case law require review/petition when prior involuntary terminations exist.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was erroneous given C.R.’s completion of improvement period | C.R.: completion and negative drug screens show she satisfied plan and should regain custody | DHHR/ GAL: compliance on paper but failed to change overall parenting attitude; ongoing safety risks due to relationship with M.L. and lack of engagement with children’s needs | Affirmed: completion is one factor; court may deny reunification if parent failed to remedy conditions and return is not in children’s best interests |
| Whether continued medically supervised Subutex use precluded reunification | C.R.: use was physician-directed during pregnancy/ breastfeeding and she never failed drug screens | DHHR/GAL: continued medication reflects incomplete substance-abuse remediation and risk to children | Court: Subutex use noted but not dispositive; overall failure to address parenting and safety justified termination |
| Whether C.R.’s relationship with M.L. justified termination despite his completion of his own services | C.R.: M.L. completed his program and regained visitation with his biological children | DHHR/GAL: children remained traumatized and fearful of M.L.; C.R.’s continued relationship showed lack of insight and failure to protect children | Court: ongoing relationship undermined correction of abuse/neglect conditions and supported termination |
| Whether the fourth child born during the proceedings required inclusion in the petition | C.R.: no direct argument recorded on appeal to exclude child | DHHR: requested amendment to include newborn; county prosecutor declined to file amendment | Court: Remanded — circuit court must order immediate filing of abuse-and-neglect petition as required when a parent has prior involuntary terminations to determine whether problems are remedied for the subsequently born child |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Katie S., 198 W.Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (W.Va. 1996) (primary goal in abuse/neglect cases is children’s health and welfare)
- In re Carlita B., 185 W.Va. 613, 408 S.E.2d 365 (W.Va. 1991) (court reviews improvement-period performance and may deny return if insufficient improvement)
- In re B.H., 233 W.Va. 57, 754 S.E.2d 743 (W.Va. 2014) (compliance is one factor; best interests control dispositional decisions)
- In re R.J.M., 164 W.Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (W.Va. 1980) (courts need not pursue every speculative possibility of parental improvement before terminating rights)
- In the Matter of George Glen B., Jr., 205 W.Va. 435, 518 S.E.2d 863 (W.Va. 1999) (when parental rights to a sibling were involuntarily terminated, a petition must be filed to review remediation for subsequently born children)
- State ex rel. Diva P. v. Kaufman, 200 W.Va. 555, 490 S.E.2d 642 (W.Va. 1997) (DHHR is client of county prosecutors in civil abuse/neglect proceedings; prosecutors must cooperate with DHHR)
- In re Timber M., 231 W.Va. 44, 743 S.E.2d 353 (W.Va. 2013) (appellate court may order action to protect a child’s welfare even if placement issue not raised on appeal)