In re C.W.

• Decision Date: 12 May 2022
• Docket Number: 21-0974
• Parties: In re C.W., E.P., and L.P.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

In re C.W., E.P., and L.P.

No. 21-0974

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia

May 12, 2022

(Webster County 21-JA-20, 21-JA-21, and 21-JA-22)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Mother Z.W., by counsel Andrew B. Chattin, appeals the Circuit Court of Webster County's November 3, 2021, order terminating her parental rights to C.W., E.P., and L.P.^[1]The West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources ("DHHR"), by counsel Patrick Morrisey and Andrew Waight, filed a response in support of the circuit court's order. The guardian ad litem, Mary Elizabeth Snead, filed a response on behalf of the children also in support of the circuit court's order. On appeal, petitioner argues that the circuit court erred in terminating her parental rights without first granting her an improvement period.

This Court has considered the parties' briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Upon consideration of the standard of review, the briefs, and the record presented, the Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these reasons, a memorandum decision affirming the circuit court's order is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Prior to the filing of the instant petition, the DHHR filed a child abuse and neglect petition against petitioner in April of 2015 due to substance abuse and deplorable home conditions. Petitioner was adjudicated as an abusing parent and, eventually, chose to voluntarily relinquish her parental rights to the older child rather than participate in an improvement period.

The DHHR filed the instant petition in June of 2021, raising nearly identical issues as the previous petition. Specifically, the DHHR alleged that petitioner's home was in deplorable condition with portions of the ceiling falling down, trash and old food scattered throughout the home, garbage and various items scattered outside of the home, cockroaches in the home, and a

1

broken ladder leading to an upstairs floor. A Child Protective Services ("CPS") worker spoke with petitioner, who agreed to submit to a drug screen and admitted that she would test positive for marijuana. Upon submitting to the screen, petitioner tested positive for amphetamines, methamphetamine, and ecstasy, in addition to marijuana. The DHHR further alleged that the CPS worker was provided with text messages sent from petitioner to an acquaintance wherein petitioner stated that she did not need drug treatment, that she "cho[]se" to abuse drugs, and "cho[]se" to sell drugs. Petitioner waived her preliminary hearing.

The circuit court held an adjudicatory hearing in August of 2021. Petitioner failed to appear but was represented by counsel. At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court adjudicated her as an abusing parent upon finding that she failed to correct the conditions of abuse since the prior case, was addicted to controlled substances, and failed to provide suitable housing for her children.

The circuit court held a dispositional hearing in October of 2021. The DHHR presented the testimony of a service provider, who stated that she attempted to provide services to petitioner but petitioner was noncompliant. According to the provider, petitioner attended one session in July of 2021 and thereafter failed to attend other sessions. The provider explained that petitioner had agreed to a set schedule of weekly sessions on Tuesdays but petitioner missed at least ten of those scheduled sessions throughout August and September of 2021.

A CPS worker testified that petitioner submitted to only one additional drug screen after the petition's filing, which was also positive for methamphetamine, amphetamines, and marijuana. The CPS worker testified that a service provider attempted to contact petitioner at her home on multiple occasions to assist petitioner in submitting to drug screens, and that petitioner was never home and/or never responded to her attempts at contact. Due to her failure to submit to drug screens, petitioner was prohibited from visiting the children. Petitioner also failed to maintain contact with the...