In re Z.N. and D.N.
Mineral County 16-JA-11, 12, 13
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Minor
children Z.N. and D.N.[1] were placed in foster care in November
2016 after enduring sexual and physical abuse by their
mother's boyfriend. Their mother's parental rights
were terminated in February 2017 due to her knowledge of this
abuse. In April 2017, their father's rights were
terminated without a post-adjudicatory improvement period
based upon the circuit court's finding that he abandoned
the children. Specifically, the father did not participate in
the mother's abuse and neglect proceeding, made no effort
to visit with Z.N. and D.N. for more than one year, and
failed to meet his child support obligations. We now consider
the father's appeal[2] and affirm the circuit court's
termination of his parental rights.
Because
this case does not present a new or significant issue of law,
and for the reasons set forth below, we find it is proper for
disposition as a memorandum decision pursuant to Rule 21(c)
of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure.
I.
Facts and Procedural History
The
Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) filed the
original petition involving these children following
Z.N.'s hospital visit on June 13, 2016 while in the
custody of his mother.[3] Z.N. had a bruised and swollen penis,
bruising across the pelvic area, dark quarter-size bruises on
both cheeks, a split in his bottom lip, and a bruise near his
hairline. When asked by the physician and the Child
Protective Services (CPS) Worker what caused the bruising,
his mother offered only implausible
explanations.[4] CPS's interview of Z.N. was also
futile. He blamed his brother, D.N., for the bruising to his
face but refused to provide any information regarding the
bruising to his genital area.
Later
that day, however, during an interview with the Mineral
County Child Advocacy Center (CAC), Z.N. provided more
information. He told the interviewer that his mother coached
him to say that her boyfriend "had not done anything
[wrong]" and also disclosed that he had previously
informed a family member of sexual and physical abuse by his
mother's boyfriend. After the interview, DHHR was awarded
emergency custody of Z.N. and D.N. and they were placed with
their great-grandmother. At the preliminary hearing the
following week, the circuit court found probable cause that
the children were abused and neglected. As a result, the
children remained with their great-grandmother, but their
mother and father were granted supervised visitation.
On July
14, 2016, the Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) agreed to return
the children to the mother, so long as she agreed not to
allow contact between the children and her boyfriend. This
custodial arrangement was terminated when she violated the
terms of the safety plan only four days later. At the
resulting adjudicatory hearing on July 26, 2016, the court
granted the mother's motion for a pre-adjudicatory period
of improvement and the children were returned to her custody.
Although the father did not attend the hearing, the court
granted his counsel's motion for supervised visitation.
The father also failed to attend the subsequent status
hearing and failed to visit Z.N. and D.N. even once during
this time, later simply claiming that he failed to do so
because he was unaware that he was allowed to see them.
In
October 2016, Z.N. and D.N. were removed from their
mother's custody once again after disclosing in a second
CAC interview that they were afraid of their mother's
boyfriend because he physically and sexually abused them.
They also disclosed that their mother was aware of the abuse
but allowed her boyfriend to have continued contact with them
in violation of her agreement with DHHR. As a result, DHHR
filed an amended petition against the mother and her
boyfriend.
In the
same time period, a CPS Worker received a call from Z.N. and
D.N.'s father who offered to provide information
regarding the mother's drug use. When asked whether he
had noticed the bruising on the children, he stated that
he'd previously questioned it, but thought the mother and
her boyfriend provided adequate explanation. The father
agreed to meet with the CPS Worker and attend the hearing;
however, he did neither of those things. He later claimed
that he was unable to attend due to hospitalization, but
ultimately admitted this was untrue.
During
the October 19, 2016 preliminary hearing, the court again
found probable cause that the children were abused and
neglected.[5] Z.N. and D.N. were placed in a kinship
placement with their mother's boyfriend's father and
stepmother. But on November 22, 2016-only one month
later-they informed DHHR that they could no longer care for
the children and Z.N. and D.N. were placed in a foster home
in Grant County where they remain today.
Sometime
in November of 2016, the father called the CPS Worker and
inquired about his visitation. The petition alleges that once
the father was informed that the children were in foster
care, he did not ask why or question their wellbeing. On a
subsequent call with the CPS Worker, the father agreed to
provide his attorney with a letter outlining the issues he
believed were occurring in the mother's home, but the CPS
worker never heard from him again. At the dispositional
hearing in February 2017, the circuit court ultimately
terminated the mother's parental rights, finding-as this
Court later affirmed-that she knowingly allowed them to be
exposed to abuse, encouraged them to lie about the abuse, and
continued the relationship with her boyfriend despite the
allegations.
Two
months later-on April 11, 2017-DHHR filed a corrected amended
petition that included the father as an offending parent. The
petition alleges that the father abandoned the children by
barely participating in their mother's abuse and neglect
proceedings, [6] not attempting to see them for several
months (his supervised visitation was suspended due to
non-participation), and failing to provide support as
evidenced by his child support arrearages. Finally, the
petition noted his recent arrest following a domestic
incident with his then-girlfriend.[7]
Ultimately,
the circuit court found that the father abandoned the
children and that there was no reasonable likelihood that the
conditions of abuse and/or neglect could be corrected. The
circuit court determined that termination was necessary for
the welfare of the children. The father now appeals the
circuit court's order.
II. ...