The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court’s decision to terminate a mother’s parental rights to her three children. The case, *In Re R.M., B.M., and H.M.*, involved allegations of substance abuse, neglect, and unsafe living conditions. The Supreme Court’s ruling addressed procedural issues and ultimately upheld the termination, finding that the mother had not demonstrated a likelihood of improvement.
Background of the Case
The Department of Human Services (DHS) initiated the case in February 2023, alleging that the mother, identified as C.N., and the father had abused and neglected their three children, R.M., B.M., and H.M. The DHS’s petition cited substance abuse by the parents, leading to impaired parenting abilities and employment issues. The petition also detailed unsanitary and unsafe housing conditions, including a lack of essential provisions for the children.
The DHS’s petition highlighted that the oldest child, H.M., was living with her grandmother but was often exposed to the conditions in the parents’ home. The petition further noted that the younger children, R.M. and B.M., were frequently in soiled diapers, and that the mother refused to engage in crucial early intervention services recommended for the children.
Preliminary Hearing and Findings
A preliminary hearing was held in March 2023. Testimony from law enforcement officers and the parents provided insights into the home’s condition. Officers described the home as cluttered, with animal feces present. One officer testified that the home was unsuitable for children to live in. The parents testified as well. The mother admitted to having a dog and three cats and that the kitchen was cluttered. She denied using drugs except for marijuana. The father testified that he cooked for the family every day and that the home was cluttered due to the children’s toys but was in a livable condition. He denied that there was drug or alcohol use in the home other than his occasional marijuana use.
The court subsequently ratified the removal of the children from the home, citing imminent danger to their well-being and a lack of alternative solutions. The parents were ordered to participate in various services, including adult life skills training, parenting education, drug testing, and supervised visits.
Adjudicatory Hearings and Expert Testimony
Multiple adjudicatory hearings took place between April 2023 and February 2024. During these hearings, the DHS presented expert witnesses who discussed the children’s medical and developmental issues. These witnesses described the children’s malnutrition and other feeding problems, speech issues, and developmental delays. A speech-language pathologist, Julie Blake, testified that the children’s developmental delays were caused by a lack of opportunity and exposure to resources.
The expert testimony highlighted the children’s needs for interventional services, such as “Birth to Three,” which were not consistently provided. The experts testified that many of the children’s deficiencies were caused by their environment.
Mother’s Testimony and Additional Evidence
The mother testified on her own behalf in November 2023, describing the home as “cluttered but . . . clean.” She claimed the children received regular medical care and participated in “Birth to Three” services before their removal, but those services ended abruptly. The mother admitted to past drug use, including methamphetamine, and testified that she had not used drugs in the six months before the hearing. The mother also presented witnesses who corroborated some of her statements but also confirmed her drug use.
Adjudication and Disposition
After the hearings, the circuit court adjudicated the children as abused and neglected in February 2024. The court did not provide specific written findings of fact at the time. A dispositional hearing was held in March 2024, where the mother requested a post-adjudicatory improvement period. The court denied this request, finding that the case involved severe abuse and neglect, including extreme malnourishment and the mother’s continued drug use and denial of responsibility. The court terminated the mother’s parental rights, concluding that an improvement period would be futile.
Supreme Court’s Analysis: Jurisdiction and Factual Findings
On appeal, the Supreme Court addressed the question of whether the circuit court’s failure to provide specific factual findings at the adjudicatory stage deprived it of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court clarified that while specific findings of fact are required to determine abuse and neglect, they are not a jurisdictional requirement. The Court explained that the lack of specific findings could be waived if not objected to by the parties at the time. The Supreme Court overruled a prior case’s interpretation of subject matter jurisdiction in this area, stating that the circuit court’s “continued jurisdiction” reflected its statutory authority to proceed to the next steps in the statutory scheme.
The Court determined that the circuit court’s failure to provide specific detailed findings of fact did not deprive it of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court found that the circuit court’s failure to make the required specific findings, while an error, did not rise to the level of substantially disregarding the applicable rules and statutes.
Improvement Period and Final Decision
The Supreme Court then addressed the mother’s argument that the lower court erred by denying her a post-adjudicatory improvement period. The Court emphasized that a parent is not automatically entitled to an improvement period and that the burden of proof rests on the parent. The Court noted the mother’s continued drug use, her failure to acknowledge the abuse and neglect, and her denial of the conditions of the home. Based on these factors, the Court upheld the circuit court’s decision to deny the improvement period, concluding that the circuit court did not err.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s order terminating the mother’s parental rights. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of specific factual findings in abuse and neglect cases while clarifying the distinction between jurisdictional requirements and procedural steps. The ruling also reinforces the principle that courts are not required to provide improvement periods when parental improvement appears unlikely.