Parental Rights Termination Appeal Affirmed

1 STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS In re Z.T., C.G., and K.G. No. 24-356 (Lewis County CC-21-2023-JA-46, CC-21-2023-JA-47, and CC-21-2023-JA-48) MEMORANDUM DECISION Petitioner Mother, S.G., 1 appea ls the April 4, 2024, order of the Circuit Court of Le wis County ter minating her parental rights to her three children, Z.T., C.G., and K.G., 2 arguing that the circ uit court erre d by refusing to continue the final dispositional hearing when neither she, nor her newly retained attorney, were present. Upon review of the parties’ brie fs and oral arguments, the submitted record, and pertinent authorities, we find no error. Therefore, a memorandum decision affirming the circuit court’s order is appropriate. See W. Va. R. App. P. 21. On September 20, 2023, S.G. tested presu mptively positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine, a nd cocaine at a fa mily court hearing. The reafter, the DHS filed an abuse and neglect pe tition. In addition to drug use, the a buse and neglect pe tition alleged that S.G. had been evicted from her apartment and that she was li ving in a garage/shed with A.S., her new boyfriend who was a purported dr ug user, and Z. T., her oldest child. The petition indicated that S.G. had left C.G. and K.G. in the physical custody of R.M., the biological father of K.G. and the psychological father of C.G. 3 There were no allegations of abuse and neglect made a gainst R.M. or C.T., the biological father of Z.T. 4 1 The petitioner is represented by Jeremy B. Co oper, Esq. Attorney General John B. McCuskey, Esq., and Assistant Attorney General Heather L. Olcott, Esq., appear on behalf of the West Virginia Department of Human Services (“DHS”). Because a new attorney general took office while this appeal was pending, his name h as been subst ituted as co unsel for the DHS. The guardian ad litem is Jamella L. Lockwood, Esq. 2 We us e initials instead of full names to protect the identity of the juveniles involved in this case. See W. Va. R. App. Proc. 40(e). 3 C.G.’s biological father appea rs to be deceased, but the DHS was never able to complete DNA testing to confirm paternity, so the case proceeded with an “unknown father” as to C.G. 4 The per manency plan for Z.T. and K.G. is to remain in the c ustody of their non-off ending fathers. The permanency plan for C.G. is adoption by R.M. FILED February 18, 2026 released at 3:00 p.m. C. CASEY FORBE S, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEA LS OF WEST VIRGINIA

2 The adjudicatory hearin g began on November 7, 2023. The DHS presented evidence showing that S.G. had continued to test positive for metha mphetamine, a mphetamine, a nd c ocaine on some of her drug scre ens. However, S.G. testi fied that she had only used methamphetami ne one time which resulted in the September 2023 p ositive drug screen. Dur ing her testimony, the court questioned S.G. regar ding her “thin appearance,” indicating that it is often a sign of methamphetamine use. The court also questioned S.G.’s level of im pairment at that time and ordered an immediate drug test. The instant drug screen was posit ive for methamphetamine, so the hearing was continued. When the adjudicatory hearing resumed on December 4, 2023, S.G. requested that new counsel be appointed for her because she believed her attorney should have objected at the prior hearing when the court questioned her regarding her weight. After the c ourt explained that the questions were relevant to drug usage and impairment and that a new attorney would not be appointed, S.G. indic ated that she would p roceed with her current counsel. The cou rt then heard further evidence r egarding S.G.’s drug use and living conditions. By order entered on January 23, 2024, S.G. wa s adjudicated as an abusing and neglecting parent based on her drug use and lack of appropriate housing for her children. The parties appeared for the dispositional hearing on January 9, 2024. The DH S reque sted a continuance so it could file a motion for termina tion of S.G.’s parental rights, explaining that it had been giving her the opportunity to attend drug rehabilitation. S.G. addre ssed the court directly at that time and again requested new counsel. S he stated that there was a breakdown in communication because he r attorney told her she would l ose her children if she did not attend drug rehabilitation. The court denie d S.G.’s request, expl aining t hat her attorney was not ineffective and the advice she had been given was the truth. The di spositional hearing was reconvened on February 1, 2024, but was continued again upon a motion filed by S.G. because she was attending an in-patient drug treatment progr am. At the next dispositional hearing on February 27, 2024, S.G. sought a post-adjudicatory improvement period. She testi fied that she ha d attended drug rehabilitation because she did not want to lose h er children. Ho wever, she continued to ma intain that she had only used metha mphetamine once a nd that she did not have a d rug problem. Yet, the DH S presented evidence that she had test ed positive for methamph etamine eleven times du ring the proceedings. Upon consideration of the evidence, the court denied S.G. an improvement period, explaining that there was no basis to do so because of her unwillingness to acknowledge h er d rug problem despite clear and c onvincing evidence of her methamph etamine us e. At that point, S.G. indicated that sh e might be willing to voluntarily relinquish her parental rights, so all parties agreed to continue the matter for another week. The final dispositional hearing was h eld on March 5, 2024. That morning, the circuit c ourt received a Notice of A ppearance from an a ttorney, indicating that he had been re tained by S.G. to represent her. However, ne ither S.G., nor her newly retained attorney, appe ared at the hearing that afternoon. S.G.’s court-appointed attorne y was pre sent though and indicated that she thought S.G. had hired new counsel, b ut she had not be en contacted by the attorney. Nonetheless, S.G.’s court- appointed attorne y moved to continue the hearing due to S.G.’s abse nce. The circuit cour t denied the motion, explaining:

3 We ha d rescheduled this for toda y because of the possibility that [S.G.] was going to voluntarily relinquish her parental rights which I’d give her the opportunity; and then now she has not appeared. And, you know, I—I don’t—I’m not going to delay this any further. The law provides that we try to put these cases in a situation where we a chieve permanency for the children.... So I think that given their ages, 5 it’s important to achieve permanency[.] [I]t’s been since November 7... almost four months since the adjudicatory hearing so I don’t t hink it’s appr opriate, under the law and under the circumstances, to continue this case further. (Footnote added). The c ourt the n proceeded to hear t estimony and argument on the DHS’s motion to terminate S.G.’s parental rights. Thereafter, the court found that there was no reasonable likelihood that the conditi ons of a buse and ne glect could be c orrected in the near f uture beca use of S.G.’s refusal to acknowledge her substance abuse problem even when confronted with evidence that she had tested positive for methamph etamine eleve n times during t he ca se. The court also made a finding that it was in the children’s best in terests to terminate S.G.’ s parental rights. The dispositional order was entered on April 4, 2024, and this appeal followed. On appeal from a final order in an abuse a nd ne glect proceeding, this Court reviews the circuit court’s findings of fact for clear error and i ts conclusions of l aw de novo. Syl. P t. 1, In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011). In t his appeal, S.G. only challenges the cir cuit court’s refusal to continue the final di spositional hearing. She argues that the circuit cou rt erred by denying h er and her n ew attorney the opportun ity to appear and present evidence to show that her drug screen results were unreliable. It is well established that “‘[a] motion for continuance is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its ruling will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a showing that there has been an abuse of dis cretion.’ Syl. Pt. 2, State v. Bush, 163 W.Va. 168, 255 S.E.2d 539 (1979).” Syl. Pt. 3, In re Mark M., 201 W. Va. 265, 496 S.E.2d 215 (1997). This Court has held t hat “‘[w]hether there has been an abuse of discretion in denying a continuance must be decided on a case-by-case basis in lig ht of the f actual circumstances presented, particularly the reasons for the continuance that were pr esented to the trial court at the time the request was denied.’” Id., 201 W. Va. at 265, 496 S.E.2d at 215, quoting syl. pt. 3, Bush. Upon review, we find no abuse of discretion. Rule 32 of the Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect P roceedings requires the dispositional hearing t o commence within forty-five days of entry of t he fi nal adjudicatory order unless an improvement p eriod is granted. While the dispositi onal hearing in this proceeding began within the requisite time frame, three continuan ces had caused the m atter to remain pending two months later. Our procedural rule s are designed to achieve permanency for children a s quickly as 5 The children were three, five, and eight years old.

4 possible because we ha ve recognized t hat “[u]njustified procedural delays wreak havoc on a child’s development, stability and security.” S yl. Pt. 1, in part, In re Carlita B., 185 W. Va. 613, 408 S.E.2d 365 (1991). Accordingly, “we repeatedly have held in our case law that abuse and neglect proc eedings should be resolved as expediently as possible in order t o safeguard the well being of the young children at the he art of su ch proceedings.” In re Emily, 208 W. Va. 325, 337, 540 S.E.2d 542, 554 (2000). It is clear from the record in t his case t hat the circuit court re fused to continue the dispositional hearing further so that it could meet this goal. While S.G. posits that there must have be en miscommuni cation as to the fin al hearing date, there is no evidence in the record to support that asse rtion. On the contrary, the record reflects that S.G. was present at the February 27 hearing and expressly agreed t o continuing the matter to March 5 so she could complete t he ne cessary paperwork to voluntarily relinquish her p arental rights. As for S.G.’s claim t hat by denying her a continuance, she was unable to challenge the accuracy of her drug screens, the record shows that she had that opportunity and did in fact submit results from independent drug t esting she had completed in November 2023. 6 She also requested and was granted authorization for a hair follicle drug screen but then chose not to have that test. 7 Finally, S.G. argues that she was put in a “patently disadvantageous position” because of the circuit court’s displeasure with her new ly retained attorney’s absence after he gave notice that he had been hired to represent her. 8 While the cour t did comment on t he attorney’s failure to appear on other simi lar occasions, most of the remarks were made at the end of the hearing a fter the court decided to terminate S.G.’s par ental ri ghts. Having ca refully r eviewed the record, we find that the decision not to delay the m atter f urther was b ased on the need to provide pe rmanency for the children, and therefore, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion. Having found no error, we hereby a ffirm t he circuit court’s April 4, 2024, order terminating S.G.’s parental rights. 6 The te st did not check for the presence of m ethamphetamine and the cutoff level for other controlled substances was higher than that used by the Day Report Center. 7 Under Rule 35(a)(2) of the Rules of Procedure f or Child Abuse a nd N eglect Proceedings, [i]f the parent is not pres ent in c ourt and has not relinquished parental rights but has failed to contest the termin ation, the [DHS] shall make a prima fa cie (“on its face”) showing that there is a legal basis for the termination of parental rights and the court shall determine whether the parent was given proper notice of t he proceedings. While S.G.’s court appointed counsel sought a continuance, she never asserted that S.G. lacked proper notice of the proceedings. 8 S.G.’s newly retained attorney was never substituted as counsel under West Virginia Trial Court Rule 4.04.

5 Affirmed. ISSUED: February 18, 2026 CONCURRED IN BY: Chief Justice C. Haley Bunn Justice William R. Wooton Justice Charles S. Trump IV Justice Thomas H. Ewing Justice Gerald M. Titus III