In re P.M., 20-0831

Background

DHHR filed a child abuse and neglect petition (Jan 2019) alleging petitioner A.C. suffered severe, untreated mental illness (delusions/paranoia, rage) that endangered then-4-year-old P.M.; older child N.C. later reached majority and was dismissed.
Reports included a violent assault on petitioner’s mother witnessed by P.M., domestic-violence filings, and family statements that petitioner had delusions and bite marks on N.C.; CPS investigated in Putnam County.
Forensic evaluators (multiple) documented delusional/paranoid thought, bipolar diagnosis, poor prognosis for attaining minimally adequate parenting, and concerns about petitioner’s lack of insight and likely noncompliance with treatment.
Petitioner, represented by counsel and with a guardian ad litem’s concurrence, stipulated at adjudication (May 2019); she was later granted an improvement period but made inconsistent treatment efforts and disputed having mental illness.
Circuit court denied renewed custody/unsupervised visitation, allowed monitored phone contact, and at disposition (Aug 2020) terminated petitioner’s custodial rights to P.M. (custody remained with father); petitioner appealed.

Issues

Issue	Petitioner’s Argument	DHHR/Court’s Argument	Held
Venue (Putnam County) proper?	Putnam was improper; petitioner and children resided in Kanawha County at filing; venue jurisdictional and not waivable.	Petition and testimony supported Putnam residency and incidents occurred in Putnam; venue was waived by stipulation and case progression.	Venue was proper (record showed Putnam residency and abuse incident); no error.
Acceptance of counsel/guardian-ad-litem-facilitated stipulation	Court’s brief colloquy insufficient to show petitioner’s voluntary, knowing stipulation given her mental state; counsel/guardian cannot stipulate for client.	Petitioner had notice, counsel and GAL recommended stipulation, petitioner confirmed non-contest; Rule 26 satisfied under facts.	Court did not err in accepting stipulation; circumstances and counsel/GAL statements rendered plea voluntary.
Denial of post-dispositional improvement period	Petitioner argued she showed changed circumstances and willingness to participate (treatment entries, housing, employment) and COVID-19/mental illness impeded participation.	Petitioner failed to acknowledge core mental-health problem; late, inconsistent treatment made another improvement period futile.	Denial affirmed: statute requires likelihood of full participation and substantial change; petitioner failed to show both.
Termination of custodial rights and limitation of post-termination visitation	Petitioner argued passive neglect from mental illness merited less-restrictive alternatives and in-person post-termination visitation given bond with child.	Records showed no reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected soon; visitation had failed in therapeutic/supervised settings and phone contact was in child’s best interest.	Termination of custodial rights (only) and restriction to monitored phone contact upheld as least-restrictive and in child’s best interest.

Key Cases Cited

In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (W. Va. 2011) (standard of review in abuse & neglect bench trials)
In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W. Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (W. Va. 1996) (appellate review standard for circuit court findings)
Loar v. Massey, 261 S.E.2d 83 (W. Va. 1979) (orders approved by counsel and unobjected to are not reviewed on appeal)
In re S.C., 168 W. Va. 366, 284 S.E.2d 867 (W. Va. 1981) (similar waiver principle when counsel approves order)
In re Christina L., 194 W. Va. 446, 460 S.E.2d 692 (W. Va. 1995) (factors for post-termination visitation and best-interest analysis)
In re Timber M., 231 W. Va. 44, 743 S.E.2d 352 (W. Va. 2013) (parent must acknowledge problem for improvement period to be effective)
In re M.M., 236 W. Va. 108, 778 S.E.2d 338 (W. Va. 2015) (circuit court has discretion to grant improvement periods)