In re M.B., C.H.-1, ad C.H.-2 ( 2023 )

FILED
March 7, 2023
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK
SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
OF WEST VIRGINIA
In re M.B., C.H.-1, and C.H.-2,
No. 22-0395 (Fayette County 19-JA-97, 19-JA-100, and 19-JA-111)
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Petitioner Mother A.D. 1 appeals the Circuit Court of Fayette County’s February 10, 2022,
order terminating her parental rights to M.B., C.H.-1, and C.H.-2. 2 Upon our review, we determine
that oral argument is unnecessary and that a memorandum decision affirming the circuit court’s
order is appropriate. See W. Va. R. App. P. 21.
In July of 2019, the DHHR filed a petition alleging that then-ten-year-old M.B. had been
sexually abused by her stepfather J.H. The DHHR further alleged in amended petitions that then-
nine-year-old M.B. and then-eight-year-old C.S., another child not at issue on appeal, disclosed
that petitioner was aware of the sexual abuse and failed to protect M.B. from the abuse; the
petition’s amendments also included allegations of domestic violence.
The circuit court held a series of contested adjudicatory hearings in June and August of
2020, wherein the DHHR called numerous witnesses and presented exhibits. Petitioner testified to
several instances of domestic violence between she and J.H., including an incident during which
M.B. called the police. Petitioner also testified that J.H.’s ex-paramour told her about J.H.’s sexual
abuse of M.B. but petitioner admits that she refused to believe the allegation. After considering
the evidence and the arguments of counsel, the court adjudicated petitioner as an abusing parent.
Further, the court found that aggravated circumstances existed due to “repeated exposure to
domestic violence and sexual abuse.”
1
Petitioner is self-represented. The West Virginia Department of Health and Human
Resources (“DHHR”) appears by counsel Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and Assistant
Attorney General Brittany Ryers-Hindbaugh. Vickie L. Hylton appears as the children’s guardian
ad litem (“guardian”). Additionally, as two children share the same initials, we refer to them
respectively as C.H.-1 and C.H.-2 throughout this memorandum decision.
2
We use initials where necessary to protect the identities of those involved in this case. See
W. Va. R. App. P. 40(e).
1
In November of 2020, petitioner moved for a post-adjudicatory improvement period, which
the circuit court denied, finding that she was “unlikely to take the necessary steps to protect the
respondent children from [J.H.].” Petitioner renewed her motion for an improvement period in
January of 2021, which the DHHR and the guardian supported. The circuit court granted the
motion.
The circuit court held a final dispositional hearing in September of 2021. The DHHR
presented evidence that petitioner had not been truthful with the multidisciplinary team members
or the guardian regarding her relationship with J.H., who testified that he and petitioner, although
recently divorced, remained in a romantic relationship. He also stated that he had sent petitioner
money, he helped her move, and he had received sexually explicit pictures from petitioner.
Petitioner testified that she had not been truthful about her ongoing contact with J.H.
Ultimately, the circuit court stated that petitioner had “engaged in a campaign of
manipulation, lying, and eventual blame-shifting to avoid addressing her contributions to the abuse
and neglect of the children.” The court found that there was no reasonable likelihood that the
conditions of neglect and abuse could be substantially corrected in the near future and that
termination was necessary for the children’s welfare. 3 Based upon these findings, the court
terminated petitioner’s parental rights by its February 10, 2022, order, which petitioner now
appeals. 4
On appeal from a final order in an abuse and neglect proceeding, this Court reviews the
circuit court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. Syl. Pt. 1, In re
Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011).
Petitioner puts forth six assignments of error. However, petitioner completely fails to
develop any of her assignments of error and falls woefully short of complying with Rule 10(c)(7)
of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure, as she has failed to provide a single citation to
the appendix record, cite authority, or otherwise provide support for her skeletal arguments. Rule
10(c)(7) requires, in relevant part, that “[t]he argument must contain appropriate and specific
citations to the record on appeal, including citations that pinpoint when and how the issues in the
assignments of error were presented to the lower tribunal.” Critically, this Rule also provides that
3
The court’s order also contained a lengthy section addressing petitioner’s argument that
she should be deemed a “battered spouse.” First, the court explained that petitioner failed to raise
the issue at any of her three adjudicatory hearings. Nonetheless, even if petitioner had been found
to be a “battered spouse,” the court stated that petitioner was not granted “leeway to avoid
responsibility for her contribution to the children’s abuse and neglect, nor does it provide her with
a license to continue the same behaviors that placed [the] children at risk of abuse and neglect in
the first instance.”
4
The father of C.H.-1 and C.H.-2 voluntarily relinquished his parental rights. M.B.
achieved permanency with her nonabusing father. C.H.-1 was placed in the same home as M.B.
with a permanency plan of adoption by M.B.’s father. C.H.-2 is placed in a foster home with two
half-siblings and the permanency plan is adoption in that home.
2
“[t]he Supreme Court may disregard errors that are not adequately supported by specific references
to the record on appeal.” Id. As we have previously stated, “[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.” State v. Kaufman, 227 W. Va. 537, 555 n.39, 711 S.E.2d 607, 625 n.39 (2011)
(citation omitted). Because petitioner’s assignments of error present a skeletal argument that is
nothing more than a mere assertion, we find petitioner has failed to preserve these claims on appeal.
Nonetheless, we conclude that the circuit court’s finding that there was no reasonable
likelihood that the conditions of neglect and abuse could be substantially corrected in the near
future is fully supported by the record, including petitioner’s apparent failure to comply with the
terms and conditions of her improvement period. See W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(d)(3) (providing
that there is no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of neglect or abuse can be substantially
corrected when “[t]he abusing parent . . . [has] not responded to or followed through with a
reasonable family case plan or other rehabilitative efforts of social, medical, mental health, or other
rehabilitative agencies designed to reduce or prevent the abuse or neglect of the child.”); see also
Syl. Pt. 5, In re Kristin Y., 227 W. Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (2011) (holding that “[t]ermination of
parental rights . . . may be employed without the use of intervening less restrictive alternatives
when it is found that there is no reasonable likelihood . . . that the conditions of neglect or abuse
can be substantially corrected”). Upon this record, the Court finds no error in the circuit court’s
termination of petitioner’s parental rights.
For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the decision of the circuit court, and its
February 10, 2022, order is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
ISSUED: March 7, 2023
CONCURRED IN BY:
Chief Justice Elizabeth D. Walker
Justice Tim Armstead
Justice John A. Hutchison
Justice William R. Wooton
Justice C. Haley Bunn
3