State ex rel. P.G.-1 v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 17 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | 21-0266 |
| Citation | 878 S.E.2d 730 |
| Parties | STATE of West Virginia EX REL. P.G.-1, P.G.-2, and K.G., JR., Petitioners v. The Honorable Ronald E. WILSON, Judge of the Circuit Court of Hancock County, A.G., and The West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, Respondents |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Amy Pigg Shafer, Esq., Shafer Law Offices, Wheeling, West Virginia, Guardian Ad Litem.
Christopher Alan Scheetz, Esq., Follansbee, West Virginia, Counsel for Respondent A.G.
Patrick Morrisey, Esq., Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, Chaelyn W. Casteel, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Fairmont, West Virginia, Counsel for Respondent West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources.
This original jurisdiction proceeding stems from an abuse and neglect petition filed in the Circuit Court of Hancock County. Petitioners are three boys, P.G.-1,1 P.G.-2, and K.G., Jr. (the "G Children"), who, by their guardian ad litem , ask the Court to issue a writ prohibiting the circuit court from extending the improvement period of their mother, Respondent A.G. The G Children request, in particular, a writ that either (a) commands the circuit court to set their case for a dispositional hearing or (b) commands the circuit court to terminate A.G.’s parental rights.
Based on the record before us, the arguments of the parties, and the applicable law, we find that A.G.’s improvement period was improper from the beginning and that, even if A.G.’s improvement period had been proper, the circuit court committed clear error in extending her improvement period. Accordingly, we grant the writ of prohibition and remand this case to the circuit court for the limited purpose of holding an immediate evidentiary hearing and determining an appropriate disposition.
A.G. is the mother of eight children, three of whom—the G Children—are the subjects of this petition. She is married to the G Children's father, K.G. Her other children include H.W., J.W.-1, L.W., and J.W.-2 (the "W Children"), who live with their father, J.W.-3.2 The eighth child, H.K.G., was born while this action was pending in circuit court. Paternity testing revealed that J.W.-4 is her father. The W Children and H.K.G. are not subjects of this petition.
In November 2018, Child Protective Services ("CPS") received a referral accusing K.G. of domestic violence. The G Children were removed and placed in foster care. In February 2019, DHHR filed an abuse and neglect petition. The petition accused K.G. of domestic violence and abusing drugs and alcohol; it accused A.G. of participating in domestic violence with K.G. and failing to protect the children.3
A.G. signed a written post-adjudicatory improvement plan in May 2019.4 Though the improvement plan was filed with the circuit court, there is no indication that A.G. ever filed a written motion seeking an improvement period. Nevertheless, the improvement period plan provided for (a) drug screens, (b) a psychological evaluation (and compliance with recommendations), (c) a healthy relationships class (to address the domestic violence), (d) parent education classes, and (e) life skills classes. The plan further required A.G. to (f) participate in supervised visits, (g) maintain suitable housing, (h) maintain employment, (i) execute releases, (j) work with DHHR to establish medical insurance, (k) be honest with the multi-disciplinary team ("MDT"), (l) refrain from associating with drug or alcohol abusers, and (m) comply with all services.
In July 2019, A.G. submitted to a parental fitness examination. According to the psychologist's report, A.G. denied that there was "any" domestic violence in her home, and she professed not to know why CPS came to her house. According to her, the children "told too many stories[.]" The psychologist concluded that A.G.’s prognosis was "poor" and that she did not "have the intellectual capacity to care for her children." Indeed, the psychologist opined that her "intellectual disabilities"—which included an IQ of 45—were "not likely to improve." Nevertheless, the psychologist recommended that A.G. attend a domestic violence group and counseling to address her parenting deficiencies.
The guardian ad litem submitted an extensive report in January 2020. The report noted that the G Children were doing well and had "clearly bonded with their foster family." A.G., however, was not "making satisfactory progress" on her improvement plan. She remained unemployed and without housing of her own. Her service provider wished to terminate services due to her failure to communicate properly with the provider.
At a status hearing in February 2020, the guardian advised that A.G. had performed poorly from October to January but was doing better at attending life skills and parenting classes. However, the guardian also reported that the W Children had refused contact with A.G. after they observed K.G. leaving A.G.’s home. The guardian further noted that A.G. had not followed through on counseling and domestic violence group attendance. The circuit court ordered A.G. to produce proof of attendance and to have no contact with K.G. Though the circuit court ordered that A.G. would "continue on her post-adjudicatory plan of improvement[,]" the court did not find that A.G. had substantially complied with her improvement period, or that compelling circumstances were present that rendered an extension in the children's best interests.
In March 2020, this Court entered the first of several administrative orders in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The administrative orders substantially curtailed activity at the circuit court level.5 These orders remained in effect until May 2020.6
The MDT convened remotely in May 2020. Notes from the meeting7 indicate that A.G.’s progress was inconsistent. She reported that she would begin therapy in June. Though A.G. had experienced a lapse in parenting and life skills training due to the COVID-19 pandemic, those services were set to resume. A.G. had regularly visited the G Children by video conference. Unfortunately, the report also indicated K.G. had been arrested at A.G.’s residence on drug-related charges. Ultimately, the MDT reported a "lack of positive progress" on A.G.’s improvement plan.
The day after the MDT meeting, the guardian ad litem served a written motion to terminate A.G.’s improvement period. The motion cited A.G.’s failure to regularly attend parenting and life skills classes and supervised visits from October 2019 to January 2020, failure to obtain suitable housing, failure to maintain consistent employment, her failure—until May 2020—to begin therapy, and failure to refrain from contact with K.G.
A day later, the circuit court conducted a status hearing but did not take up the guardian's motion. Instead, the court instructed that a "detailed list" be prepared of tasks for which A.G. would have to demonstrate "100% compliance" by June 30. DHHR compiled the list and e-mailed the list to A.G.’s counsel the following day.
The circuit court conducted a telephonic status hearing on June 30, 2020. At the hearing, the guardian ad litem detailed A.G.’s failure to achieve full compliance with her improvement plan. Despite the circuit court's previous insistence on "100% compliance," the circuit court did not terminate A.G.’s improvement period or set the matter for a dispositional hearing. Instead, the Court asked to be "notified immediately" if A.G. missed "even one" drug screen or other appointment and commanded A.G. to continue her improvement period with "strict compliance" and no contact with K.G.
The circuit court conducted another telephonic status hearing in July. The guardian reported that A.G. had missed some parenting and life skills sessions, and that no further services had occurred after July 9. When the provider explained that services had been terminated for non-compliance, the court instructed DHHR to find another provider. Regarding visitation, the court was advised that A.G. continued to have no visits with the W Children because they refused to see her. A.G. claimed that she was having telehealth sessions with a counselor once a week, however, neither the guardian nor DHHR could verify this claim without releases from A.G. A.G. claimed that she had applied for housing in Ohio and that she was willing to apply for housing in West Virginia. Despite all these indications of non-compliance, the Court refused to terminate A.G.’s improvement period, blaming DHHR for "not following up on its obligations." The court again advised A.G. that "strict compliance" was expected, and she was ordered to meet DHHR in Chester, West Virginia, every Wednesday so DHHR could transport her to her drug screen.
An August 2020 MDT report indicated that A.G.’s attorney said he planned to seek a guardian ad litem for her, due to her low IQ. DHHR reported that A.G. had attended just 13 of 35 life skills sessions and just 13 of 39 parenting sessions. DHHR planned to join the guardian ad litem ’s motion to terminate A.G.’s improvement period. There were additional reports that A.G. was having contact with K.G. Video-conference visitation was going well, however, and the G Children still wished to be with A.G.
Later that month, the parties appeared for a telephonic status hearing. DHHR still lacked counseling releases. The circuit court told A.G. to provide such releases to DHHR as soon as possible. DHHR had yet to find a new service provider. Of the three available providers, one could not take on a new client, and the remaining two refused to accept A.G. due to her history of non-compliance. A.G. remained unemployed and had not been drug screened since the July status hearing. She was staying in a friend's trailer in Ohio. The court advised that it did not believe a guardian for A.G. was warranted. The circuit court noted that the guardian ad litem ’s motion to terminate A.G.’s...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re A.W.-1
... ... contravention to Syl. Pt. 5, State ex rel. P.G.-1 v ... Wilson, 247 W.Va. 235, 878 S.E.2d 730, 733 ... ...