Summary
The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the termination of petitioner mother R.H.’s parental rights to L.G. The court held that the circuit court did not err in limiting the post-dispositional improvement period to visitation-related purposes, declining to address an inadequately supported evidentiary argument, or terminating parental rights rather than imposing a less-restrictive disposition. The decision relied on petitioner’s continued relationship with the child’s adjudicated sexual abuser and her failure to remedy that condition despite services.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the circuit court erred by admitting the Child Advocacy Center interview of an unrelated child when petitioner failed to support the appellate argument with citations to the record or legal authority.
- Whether the circuit court erred by limiting petitioner's post-dispositional improvement period to determining whether visitation would be appropriate rather than granting an improvement period for reunification.
- Whether the circuit court erred by terminating petitioner's parental rights instead of imposing a less-restrictive dispositional alternative.
Holdings
- The court may decline to address an assignment of error that is inadequately supported by legal authority and specific citations to the appellate record as required by Rule 10(c)(7). Because petitioner’s argument concerning the Child Advocacy Center interview was skeletal and unsupported, the court declined to review it.
- The circuit court did not err in limiting petitioner’s post-dispositional improvement period to determining whether visitation would be in the child’s best interests and in refusing an improvement period for reunification.
- Termination of petitioner’s parental rights was proper because there was no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse and neglect could be substantially corrected in the near future and termination was necessary for the child’s welfare. The circuit court was not required to exhaust less-restrictive alternatives.
Key quotations
“A skeletal ‘argument,’ really nothing more than an assertion, does not preserve a claim . . . . Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.” (4)
“An improvement period in the context of abuse and neglect proceedings is viewed as an opportunity for the . . . parent to modify his/her behavior so as to correct the conditions of abuse and/or neglect with which he/she has been charged.” (5)
“Termination of parental rights, the most drastic remedy under the statutory provision covering the disposition of neglected children, [West Virginia Code § 49-4-604] may be employed without the use of intervening less restrictive alternatives when it is found that there is no reasonable likelihood under [West Virginia Code § 49-4-604(d)] that conditions of neglect or abuse can be substantially corrected.” (6-7)
Factual background
The DHHR alleged that petitioner maintained a relationship with C.S., whom the Barbour County Family Court had found sexually abused petitioner’s child, L.G., and that petitioner had a history of drug addiction. Petitioner stipulated that she had been addicted to drugs and failed to protect L.G. by continuing her relationship with C.S., while initially denying or refusing to believe the child’s disclosures of abuse. Although petitioner later claimed to have ended the relationship and participated in services, evidence including witness testimony, photographs, video, and a Child Advocacy Center interview showed that she continued to associate with C.S. through at least January 2020. The circuit court found that petitioner lacked insight, continued to choose C.S. over the child, and could not substantially correct the conditions of abuse and neglect in the near future.
Procedural history
The DHHR filed an abuse and neglect petition after alleging that petitioner maintained a relationship with a man previously found to have sexually abused L.G. and that petitioner had experienced a drug overdose. Petitioner stipulated to the allegations, was adjudicated an abusing parent, and was denied a post-adjudicatory improvement period. The circuit court later granted a limited post-dispositional improvement period concerning visitation, but after finding that petitioner continued her relationship with C.S. and was not credible, terminated her parental rights and granted supervised post-termination visitation. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed.