In re I.B., 090517 WVSC, 17-0249

• Judge: CONCURRED IN BY: Chief Justice Allen H. Loughry II Justice Robin Jean Davis Justice Margaret L. Workman Justice Menis E. Ketchum Justice Elizabeth D. Walker.
• Parties: In re: I.B.
• Docket Number: 17-0249
• Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
• Date: 05 September 2017

In re: I.B.

No. 17-0249

Supreme Court of West Virginia

September 5, 2017

Raleigh County 16-JA-042-K

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Mother D.H., by counsel Elizabeth A. French, appeals the Circuit Court of Raleigh County's January 17, 2017, order terminating her parental rights to then seven-year-old I.B.¹ The West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources ("DHHR"), by counsel S.L. Evans, filed a response in support of the circuit court's order. The guardian ad litem ("guardian"), John F. Parkulo, filed a response on behalf of I.B. also in support of the circuit court's order. On appeal, petitioner argues that the circuit court erred in terminating her parental rights to the child.²

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.

In March of 2016, the DHHR filed an abuse and neglect petition alleging that petitioner appeared "out of it" and had two black eyes when she arrived at the child's school. When the principal contacted police, petitioner reportedly left the school without the child. The principal later informed a Child Protective Services ("CPS") worker that petitioner seemed to be intoxicated. Petitioner was subsequently arrested on a charge of child neglect.

In June of 2016, the circuit court held an adjudicatory hearing. At that hearing, petitioner stipulated to her abuse and neglect of the child due to her substance abuse. Thereafter, the circuit court granted petitioner's motion for a post-adjudicatory improvement period.

In August of 2016, the circuit court held a review hearing regarding petitioner's improvement period. At that review hearing, it was reported that petitioner was "not doing anything" to improve her substance abuse, but she claimed that she intended to seek inpatient substance abuse treatment. At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court continued petitioner's improvement period.

In November of 2016, the circuit court held a final review hearing on petitioner's improvement period. Petitioner was not present in person, but she was represented by counsel. The circuit court found that petitioner failed to comply with the family case plan and terminated her improvement period.

In January of 2017, the circuit court held a dispositional hearing. Petitioner was not present in person, but she was represented by counsel. The circuit court found that petitioner was not present; had not visited the child; and failed to cooperate with the DHHR. Based on these...