In re S.P.-1
21-0916
| W. Va. | May 12, 2022Background
- Child had been in permanent legal guardianship of maternal grandparents (petitioner P.P. and grandfather) after parents’ rights were terminated in 2015; DHHR filed a new abuse/neglect petition in April 2020.
- CPS investigation found the grandparents’ home in deplorable condition (trash, mold, no utilities or generator fuel), reports that the grandparents threatened to beat the child, and multiple household members using/abusing drugs; child reported fear and frequent stays with biological mother.
- Petitioner admitted occasional marijuana use, prior methamphetamine abuse, and living with an adult son in active addiction; she denied current meth use and claimed health issues limited mobility.
- Court adjudicated petitioner an abusing guardian and granted a post-adjudicatory improvement period requiring random drug screens, suitable housing, and supervised visitation.
- Petitioner refused or failed to complete drug screening despite in-home options and other accommodations; the child refused visitation and was reported to be thriving academically and emotionally in foster care.
- At the October 2021 dispositional hearing the circuit court found no reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected and terminated petitioner’s guardianship; the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed on May 12, 2022.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Petitioner) | Defendant's Argument (DHHR/Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to terminate guardianship | DHHR failed to prove she refused drug screens or failed to clean home; she attended some classes; evidence insufficient for termination | Record shows continued drug use (admitted marijuana), refusal to submit to screens, unsafe home conditions, and child’s credible disclosures | Affirmed: sufficient evidence to terminate under §49-4-604(c)(6) and (d) |
| Good‑faith provision of improvement period/services | DHHR did not craft workable plan around petitioner’s health, only offered bus pass and in‑person screens; services not meaningfully accessible | DHHR provided in‑home parenting, adult life skills, and in‑home drug screens; accommodations were made but petitioner didn’t comply | Affirmed: DHHR offered accommodations and petitioner failed to meaningfully participate |
| Failure to enforce visitation / reunification opportunity | Denial of visitation frustrated reunification; visits could have been supervised or therapeutic on neutral ground | Child repeatedly refused contact, expressed mature, credible wishes; petitioner’s noncompliance with services meant visitation would not have aided reunification | Affirmed: child’s refusal and petitioner’s noncompliance justified lack of visitation |
| Consideration of petitioner’s health limitations | Court unfairly penalized petitioner for health problems that impeded compliance | Court considered health but reasonably found it insufficient to enable safe parenting given lack of transportation, mobility, and ongoing drug exposure in home | Affirmed: health considered but did not preclude termination given overall record |
Key Cases Cited
- In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W. Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (sets deferential standard of review for bench findings in abuse and neglect cases)
- In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (applies statutory framework for termination review)
- In re R.J.M., 164 W. Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (termination may be used without intermediate less‑restrictive alternatives when correction unlikely)
- In re Kristin Y., 227 W. Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (reiterates standards for termination where parent shows inadequate capacity to remedy conditions)
- State ex rel. Lipscomb v. Joplin, 131 W. Va. 302, 47 S.E.2d 221 (child welfare is primary consideration in custody disputes)
- In re S.W., 233 W. Va. 91, 755 S.E.2d 8 (courts may consider child’s expressed wishes when child is sufficiently mature)