In re J.C.-1
| Decision Date | 12 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21-1042 |
| Parties | In re J.C.-1 and K.C. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Randolph County 20-JA-105 and 20-JA-106
Petitioner Father J.C.-2, by counsel Steven B. Nanners, appeals the Circuit Court of Randolph County's December 3, 2021 order terminating his parental rights to J.C.-1 and K.C.[1]The West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources ("DHHR"), by counsel Patrick Morrisey and Andrew T. Waight, filed a response in support of the circuit court's order. The guardian ad litem ("guardian"), Heather M. Weese, 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 adjudicating him as an abusing parent denying him an improvement period, and terminating his parental rights.
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.
The DHHR filed an abuse and neglect petition against petitioner in August of 2020. Relevant to the instant case, petitioner and the children were the subject of a family court proceeding, during which Child Protective Services ("CPS") became involved. For reasons not apparent from the petition, petitioner's two stepchildren M.C.-1 and M.C.-2, who are not at issue on appeal, were placed or left with their paternal grandparents, and the grandparents became unable to properly care for the children due to the grandparents' age and medical conditions. In September of 2019, the DHHR received a referral that M.C.-1 and M.C.-2 were frequently observed to be unkempt and dirty and that a mass or knot had been allowed to form in M.C.-2's hair to such a degree as to cause the child pain. CPS workers investigated the referral and observed the mass in the child's hair, which appeared to have been glue or slime that solidified into a hard knot.
The investigation into M.C.-1 and M.C.-2 prompted a CPS worker to visit petitioner's home unannounced, and she observed the home to be in deplorable condition, with trash strewn throughout the home and a roach infestation. Further, petitioner owned eleven cats and one dog, and the smell of animal urine was overwhelming. The mother admitted to the CPS worker that the two younger children she shared with petitioner, J.C. and K.C., were living in the home and that, although not currently present, they would return with petitioner later that evening. Based on the conditions of the home, the worker sought ratification to remove the children. Later, the worker discovered that, at some point, K.C. had been taken to her maternal grandparents' home in Ohio, which was concerning given that the maternal grandparents' parental rights to their three children, including the mother, had been previously terminated.
Lastly, the DHHR alleged that petitioner had an extensive history of CPS involvement. Specifically, the DHHR alleged that a child abuse and neglect petition was filed against petitioner in 2000 regarding an older child after he shook her, engaged in domestic violence with her, and abused alcohol, and the DHHR further noted that petitioner had previously been adjudicated as an abusing parent prior to 2000 for reasons not apparent from the petition. In the 2000 proceedings, petitioner was adjudicated as an abusing parent and his parental rights to his older children were eventually terminated.[2] Another petition was filed against petitioner in 2007 regarding a subsequent born child as a result of his prior terminations and inadequate home conditions. Petitioner was adjudicated as an abusing parent in those proceedings, and the child was returned to his care following his successful completion of an improvement period. Yet another petition was filed against petitioner in 2010 alleging that petitioner's home was unsafe and unsanitary. Petitioner was adjudicated as an abusing parent in those proceedings and, eventually, his parental rights to his two children were terminated. Another petition was filed against petitioner in 2012, following the birth of child K.C. It is unclear whether petitioner was adjudicated in those proceedings but, ultimately, the child was returned to his care. Accordingly, the DHHR alleged that aggravated circumstances existed due to the termination of petitioner's parental rights to four older children.
Petitioner waived his preliminary hearing. In January of 2021, petitioner underwent a parental fitness examination. The evaluating psychologist gave petitioner a guarded prognosis for attaining minimally adequate parenting and indicated that petitioner currently lacked the parental capacity to care, protect, and change in order to provide adequately for the children at that time. The psychologist opined that petitioner "has deficits in understanding appropriate parenting techniques" but that petitioner claimed to not need further parenting instruction due to having already received the same in prior proceedings. The psychologist further indicated that petitioner believed he had no parenting issues that needed addressed and did not believe he had significant problems with alcohol or substance abuse.
In February of 2021, the DHHR filed an amended petition against petitioner after the children underwent Child Advocacy Center ("CAC") interviews. According to the DHHR, K.C., then approximately age eight, reported being sexually abused by her maternal grandfather while in Ohio. The child further reported that she and J.C.-1 lived with her parents and that her parents abuse marijuana, described the pipe they used to smoke the substance, and stated that her parents kept loaded firearms within their reach in the home. During his interview, J.C.-1, then approximately age seven, denied any sexual abuse or drug abuse in the home, but admitted that petitioner frequently yelled at the child's uncle. Following the CAC interviews, K.C. reported to her foster family that petitioner also sexually abused her, and J.C.-1 reported to his foster family that he lied and had not told the truth. As such, additional interviews were scheduled. The DHHR also alleged that, after supervised visits with the parents, J.C.-1 and K.C. exhibited concerning behavioral issues. J.C.-1 urinated on the bathroom floor and in a cup, both children defecated in their pants, both children threw toilet paper with feces on the floor, and K.C. destroyed makeup and wrote on the foster family's couch with a marker, among other behaviors.
The circuit court held an adjudicatory hearing in April of 2021. A CPS worker testified regarding her investigation into petitioner's home and indicated that the home was in deplorable condition. The worker stated that trash was piled throughout the home with a small walkway to pass through and that trash covered the children's beds, except for a single mattress on the floor. The worker testified that there were at least eleven cats in the home and that there was a very strong odor of spoiled trash and cat urine. Further, bugs were observed throughout the home and roaches were found in the kitchen. The worker testified that, upon attempting to remove the children from petitioner's custody, she had to travel to Ohio to retrieve K.C. and reported that the maternal grandparents were inappropriate persons to supervise the child as their parental rights to their children had previously been terminated. The worker confirmed that K.C. and J.C.-1 lived in the home with petitioner and the mother. Lastly, the worker testified regarding petitioner's prior child abuse and neglect proceedings, which raised allegations of poor home conditions and alcohol abuse. The DHHR admitted pictures of the home and orders from petitioner's prior abuse and neglect proceedings into evidence. At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court held petitioner's adjudication in abeyance so that it could review the CAC interviews.
At the reconvened adjudicatory hearing held in September of 2021, the circuit court adjudicated petitioner as an abusing parent. The court found that petitioner maintained substandard living conditions that endangered the health, safety, and welfare of the children; used drugs in front of the children; had previously been adjudicated during prior proceedings as an abusing parent for the same poor home conditions at issue in this case; and that his parental rights to his older children had been terminated for his failure to remedy those conditions.
In November of 2021, the circuit court held a dispositional hearing. Petitioner moved the court for an improvement period and testified that he had been granted an improvement period during two prior cases and that he had successfully completed the same. Petitioner indicated that he was willing to comply with an improvement period and had taken steps to improve the condition of the home, including fixing the flooring and generally cleaning the home. However, on cross-examination, petitioner was asked what he needed to improve upon during an improvement period and he responded, "I don't know." Petitioner also denied abusing and neglecting the children in the instant proceedings and minimized the bases for the prior petitions filed against him, claiming that they were due to alcohol abuse and did not involve poor home conditions.
The DHHR presented the testimony of the executive director for North Central Community Corrections. The director...
To continue reading
Request your trial