|
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1807
AMANDA UNDERWOOD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES;
JOHN J. NAJMUSKI, Commissioner, West Virginia Department of
Health and Human Services, in his official capacity; KATHRYN
A. BRADLEY, Community Services Manager of the
Berkeley/Jefferson/Morgan County Offices of the West
Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources,
Individually; MARY CARPER, Individually; JUSTIN CASTLEMAN,
Individually; TZOURI OLIVER, Individually; SHELLY
NICEWARNER, Individually; UNKNOWN EMPLOYEES OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES, and Supervisors of
Mary Carper, Individually; MARY DOE(S), Individually; JOHN
DOE(S), Individually,
Defendants ? Appellees,
and
STORM SHILEY, Individually,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin,
District Judge. (2:11-cv-00506)
Argued: March 18, 2014 Decided: April 4, 2014
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and DAVIS,
Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ARGUED: Nancy A. Dalby, Charles Town, West Virginia, for
Appellant. Natalie C. Schaefer, SHUMAN, MCCUSKEY & SLICER, PLLC,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Kimberly M.
Bandy, SHUMAN, MCCUSKEY & SLICER, PLLC, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
[End Page 2]
PER CURIAM:
This appeal concerns the process afforded to Appellant
Amanda Underwood during the course of abuse and neglect
proceedings in West Virginia state court and culminating in the
termination of Underwood's parental rights. Underwood was
originally drawn into the purview of the state's Department of
Health and Human Resources (DHHR) because her husband, Travis
Harrell, was the subject of an investigation by its child
protective services. Following an ex parte proceeding
accompanied by a series of concededly sloppy paperwork, DHHR
removed Underwood's children from her physical custody without
court ratification or the setting of a hearing. 1 Eventually,
after Underwood conceded medical neglect and was unable to
demonstrate improvement during a probationary period, the
Circuit Court of Berkeley County, West Virginia terminated her
parental rights.
Underwood then filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging
that DHHR had committed serious procedural improprieties while
handling her case. The circuit court found cause to believe that
DHHR had indeed violated Underwood's due process rights ?when
1
A comprehensive recitation of the factual record and
procedural history can be found in the district court's May 28,
2013 opinion granting Appellees? motion for summary judgment.
Underwood v. W. Va. Dep?t of Health and Human Serv., No. 11-
00506, 2013 WL 2319253, at *1 (S.D. W.Va. May 28, 2013). [End Page 3]
custody of the Infants was removed from her without court
notification and without setting a date for a preliminary
hearing[.]? J.A. 138. Notwithstanding this finding, however, the
court denied Underwood's motion for reconsideration. It found
that during the subsequently-imposed improvement period,
Underwood had not demonstrated sufficient progress to justify a
return of her children.
Underwood timely appealed and filed a writ of habeas corpus
for the return of her children in the Supreme Court of Appeals
of West Virginia. Building off the circuit court's holding, she
argued that DHHR had violated her federal due process rights
under the Fourteenth Amendment and under West Virginia law.
According to Underwood, the entirety of the flawed termination
proceedings, including her concession of medical neglect, flowed
from the improvident removal of her children, such that the DHHR
actions poisoned the ultimate termination of her parental
rights.
On September 26, 2011, the state supreme court affirmed the
circuit court's order and denied Underwood's petition. The
judgment rested primarily on the court's differing
interpretation of the events that transpired during Underwood?s
court appearances, Specifically, the court held that DHHR had
never relinquished legal custody of Underwood's children
(rather, only physical custody had been restored) and that
[End Page 4]
Underwood had waived certain process rights. It concluded that
?the record shows that petitioner's due process rights were not
violated . . . despite the circuit court's finding [otherwise].?
J.A. 455B. Underwood's parental rights having been terminated,
DHHR subsequently arranged for the legal adoption of the
children, which, as we were advised by counsel at oral argument,
has been consummated.
Underwood's instant lawsuit, filed in the Southern District
of West Virginia on July 25, 2011, alleges the same nucleus of
facts litigated in the state courts. Her amended complaint
contained seven counts, including Count III, which alleges
claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that Appellees deprived
Underwood of due process, and Count V-A, which alleges that the
West Virginia Abuse and Neglect Statute is unconstitutional on
its face and as applied to Underwood. 2
The parties submitted cross-motions for summary judgment.
After several rounds of briefing, the district court granted
DHHR's motion and denied Underwood's motion. Underwood v. W. Va.
2
Underwood had also sought injunctive relief to prohibit
DHHR from retaining custody, but that claim was denied by the
district court under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and is not
challenged on appeal. Underwood v. W. Va. Dep?t of Health and
Human Serv., No. 11-00506, 2012 WL 2026547, at *2-3 (S.D. W.Va.
June 5, 2012). [End Page 5]
Dep?t of Health and Human Serv., No. 11-00506, 2013 WL 2319253
(S.D. W.Va. May 28, 2013).
Having had the benefit of oral argument and having
carefully reviewed the briefs, record, and applicable law, we
agree with the district court's analysis as set forth in its
well-reasoned memorandum. Id. Accordingly, we affirm on the
reasoning of the district court.
AFFIRMED
[End Page 6]
|
Update
Alerts
Jump