FILED STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA April 19, 2019 EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA In re R.M.-1, R.M.-2, W.M., S.M., C.M., M.M.-1, M.M.-2, E.M. and J.M. No. 18-0962 (Lewis County 17-JA-1, 17-JA-2, 17-JA-3, 17-JA-4, 17-JA-5, 17-JA-6, 17-JA-7, 17-JA-8, and 17-JA-32) MEMORANDUM DECISION Petitioner Mother M.M.-3, by counsel Melissa T. Roman, appeals the Circuit Court of Lewis County’s October 2, 2018, order terminating her parental rights to R.M.-1, R.M.-2, W.M., S.M., C.M., M.M.-1, M.M.-2, E.M., and J.M.1 The West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (“DHHR”), by counsel James Wegman, filed a response in support of the circuit court’s order and a supplemental appendix. The guardian ad litem (“guardian”), Hunter D. Simmons, filed a response on behalf of the children in support of the circuit court’s order. On appeal, petitioner argues that the circuit court erred in terminating her parental rights. This Court has considered the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Upon consideration of the standard of review, the briefs, and the record presented, the Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these reasons, a memorandum decision affirming the circuit court’s order is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. On February 7, 2017, the DHHR filed an abuse and neglect petition against petitioner and the children’s father alleging that the father struck W.M., causing bruising and welts to the child’s face, arms, and torso and alleged that petitioner failed to protect the child. The DHHR also alleged that the family had a history of unstable housing. After multiple continuances, the circuit court held an adjudicatory hearing in June of 2017 during which petitioner stipulated to the allegations of abuse and neglect. Following the adjudicatory hearing, the parents were 1 Consistent with our long-standing practice in cases with sensitive facts, we use initials where necessary to protect the identities of those involved in this case. See In re K.H., 235 W. Va. 254, 773 S.E.2d 20 (2015); Melinda H. v. William R. II, 230 W. Va. 731, 742 S.E.2d 419 (2013); State v. Brandon B., 218 W. Va. 324, 624 S.E.2d 761 (2005); State v. Edward Charles L., 183 W. Va. 641, 398 S.E.2d 123 (1990). Additionally, because two of the children share the same initials and two other children and the mother share the same initials, they will be referred to as R.M.-1, R.M.-2, M.M.-1, M.M.-2, and M.M.-3, respectively, throughout this memorandum decision. 1 provided with adult life skills services to assist them with budgeting concerns. They also received food vouchers, and received case management and adult life skills through another service provider to assist with paying bills and obtaining employment. In December of 2017, petitioner’s ninth child, J.M. was born; however, petitioner failed to notify the DHHR of his birth. Petitioner later admitted that she lied to hospital staff ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals