Emily Allen, Author at West Virginia Public Broadcasting

New Family Treatment Court Reunites Nicholas County Families Dealing With Addiction

Nine months ago, Angie Johnson of Nicholas County got a call that would change her life.

Johnson, a mother of two, had just relapsed after temporarily losing custody of her infant daughter. She was back in an addiction treatment facility when someone from the local courthouse called and asked if she would like to give the new “family treatment court” program a try.

Through family treatment court, parents facing addiction have another option to resolve any abuse and neglect cases against them that could lead to permanently losing custody of their children.

The program connects its adult participants to treatment options, job training, housing, parenting classes and other resources for recovery — all while allowing for regular contact between parents and kids.

More than 180 adults had interacted with one of eight family treatment court programs in West Virginia by the end of April, according to the state Supreme Court of Appeals. By Thursday, 24 adults in five counties had successfully completed the program, including Johnson.

“Today means everything to me,” Johnson said after her graduation ceremony. “Because I am a good mom, I just made really bad decisions. To be 11 months clean, back to work, with reliable transportation and a home to put my girls in, it means everything to me.”

Johnson and her daughter were joined by four other Nicholas County families Thursday afternoon at the local courthouse. An area photographer had taken family portraits of the graduating families, and the framed results stood behind each participant as they accepted their certificates.

Two Different Courthouses

Meanwhile, about 90 miles west in Charleston, officials for Cabell County and the city of Huntington gathered at a different courthouse, arguing before a federal judge that three of the nation’s biggest opioid distributors should be on the hook for their role in the state’s addiction crisis.

The trial has been hailed as a major stepping stone for thousands of communities nationwide seeking similar damages.

“It did start off with opioids,” said attorney Denise Pettijohn, one of a few guardians ad litem in the Nicholas County family treatment court who represents the interests of the children involved.

“Nicholas County was a huge mining county, and that just all dried up. You have a lot of people who probably started off with prescriptions to opioids, to handle the pain of that very hard and rigorous job, and then we made it harder to get those. And they switched.”

To harder drugs. Court officials said Thursday the parents they work with are mostly dealing with addictions to fentanyl and methamphetamines.

Nicholas County Circuit Judge Steve Callaghan oversees the local family treatment court.

As a judge Callaghan couldn’t speak about the federal trial in Charleston, but he spoke at length about the difference he thinks family treatment court programs are making in the state’s struggle with addiction and the separation of families.

“Before treatment courts, the only thing we had was law enforcement, and probation,” Callaghan said. “There was some rehab, but not a whole lot. But now, after treatment courts, we have a new way to try to solve the problem.”

Expanding To More Counties

Nicholas County celebrated its graduation ceremony weeks after the governor signed House Bill 2918 into law, allowing the state supreme court to assist more counties in creating their own family treatment court programs.

Callaghan said he invites any interested counties to his courthouse to observe the process, and that it’s not a program that a county can build overnight.

“You have to get the right people, you have to get the right providers and the right lawyers, the right guardian ad litem, the right probation officer. It takes putting together a team,” Callaghan said.

One of the tenets of family treatment court is regular contact between parents and their children, through supervised visits, phone calls and eventually reunification.

But for most of Nicholas County’s first graduating class, these interactions were stifled last year by the coronavirus pandemic, which temporarily halted in-person visitations and closed the courthouse.

“We just did what we could to make it happen,” Pettijohn said. “There was a lot of FaceTime. We did a lot of Zoom visits … And when we were able to open up and start visits again, I think those visits were all the more meaningful for the kids and their parents.”

Family Treatment Court Coordinator Stephanie Smith speaks at a graduation ceremony for the first five families to successfully finish Nicholas County’s program.

Throughout lockdown, the court itself still maintained consistent contact with parents. They regularly visited the Nicholas County Day Report Center, and Family Treatment Court Coordinator Stephanie Smith still conducted in-person visits with participants every week, even if those meetings had to be outside.

Smith said that she and her team will continue to support the families they help, even after graduation.

“When we call this their safe place, their support system, I mean, it’s not just like a nice thing to say at the end,” Smith said. “It really is still there for them.”

Emily Allen is a Report for America corps member.

Justice Issues New COVID-19 Order To Dial Back Social Distancing, Mask Rules

Since first declaring a state of emergency in March 2020, Gov. Jim Justice has issued 91 executive orders related to the coronavirus pandemic. On Monday, he signed a new, six-page order, undoing more than two-thirds of what he’s signed into temporary law over the last year.

The governor removed a 100-person cap on social events that’s been in place since March 2021. He’s also reinstating the state’s requirements for unemployment benefits, which he temporarily relaxed in 2020 as the state saw an increase in lay-offs and reduced working hours as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.

Last year’s executive orders that relaxed unemployment requirements are set to expire by June 2021, according to the latest order.

“There’s a lot of stuff that was very valuable when we put it in,” Justice said Monday during a regularly scheduled online press briefing. “It’s now lived its time and it’s time to move forward.”

There are still some key provisions that will remain in place, even if they undergo some changes.

All West Virginians more than 9 years old still have to wear a face covering if they’re in a public setting where social distancing is not possible. But, after midnight Monday, Justice’s new order will exempt anyone who is participating in indoor or outdoor physical activity, for sports or exercise.

In his latest directive to West Virginians, Justice kept a handful of orders that suspended regulations of local businesses and health care providers, which increased access to telemedicine and relaxed licensing requirements for nurses seeking work.

Justice said he’s also keeping an order that requires hospitals to be prepared for any surges in COVID-19 cases.

There will still be a “joint agency task force” for handling COVID-19 vaccination efforts, and employees for nursing homes will still have to test every other week.

In counties marked red on the state’s color-coded map for coronavirus spread, athletic teams will be barred from traveling into or out of these counties.

Vaccine Hesitancy and the Johnson and Johnson Pause

West Virginia still has not resumed distribution of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine since pausing that brand’s distribution on Wednesday, April 14.

West Virginia is still doling out shots from Pfizer and Moderna, which both received emergency use authorization from the federal government late last year.

Justice said Monday that the state has more shots than it has arms to put them in, suggesting supply is greater than demand.

State health officials requested that workplaces, high school sports teams, churches and other large organizations coordinate with the state to give out vaccines.

For places that were dependent on J&J doses — namely, correctional facilities — health leaders said Monday they’re still working on a plan to begin offering Moderna and Pfizer vaccines instead.

Emily Allen is a Report for America corps member.

Broadband Expansion Bill, Minus Funding Provisions, Now Awaits Signature From Justice

The West Virginia Legislature’s latest bill for broadband expansion is off to the governor, having completed its legislative journey.

To lead sponsor Del. Daniel Linville, R-Cabell, House Bill 2002 is a good bill — one that offers new consumer protections to broadband users, makes the deployment of publicly owned infrastructure possible and expands on existing data-collection efforts to identify areas of the state that need high-speed internet.

But he said it could’ve been better. In the 40 days the Senate had to consider the bill after its passage out of the House in March, Linville said, telecommunications companies like Comcast and Suddenlink objected to attempts to add funding provisions for open access broadband infrastructure and grant-matching to the bill.

Those efforts included a bill he introduced that never passed its committee, and two failed amendments from Sen. Bob Plymale, D-Wayne, in the Senate.

“They think that because we need this so desperately, they can write the legislation,” Linville said in the House Saturday night.

“They think they can threaten us with stopping projects they have planned in order to ensure that we take no action describing how funds should be disbursed in a way that would be to the greatest benefit of our citizens,” Linville said. “Bending that way is exactly what got us in the position we’re in.”

“No. 1 Goal” Is To Get Fiber On Poles

Plymale tried twice on the Senate floor to amend the bill to include funding plans for attracting new broadband providers to the state, matching grants for local projects and creating “open access” broadband infrastructure, which — as long as the project was done solely with public funding — would’ve allowed more than one broadband provider to serve its customers from the same public network.

The amendments wouldn’t literally have added any extra dollars to the bill, although both chambers did agree to appropriate $50 million more in spending authority for broadband enhancement in 2022 than the roughly $1.1 million that’s in the current budget.

The state also anticipates hundreds of millions of dollars from federal programs like the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund and the American Rescue Act for broadband deployment over the next few years.

One of Plymale’s amendments succeeded Thursday morning, two days before the end of session — but then lawmakers reconsidered his motion that afternoon and took the amendment back, following what Linville later called “intense industry opposition.”

“I understand that what I’m asking for will not be done,” Plymale had said to the Senate. “But I will tell you, and I plead with you, you better pay attention to this. You better get involved in this. We cannot let the monopolies rule the roost or we will not serve our people.”

Senate President Craig Blair said on the floor Thursday that members received “feedback from the sector.” But, Blair promised the legislature will spend more time before the next session studying the benefits and implications of creating funds like these.

“We will get there,” Blair said, adding he will advocate for a special session or broadband-related work over the interim session. “My No. 1 goal here is to get fiber on the poles, everywhere in the state of West Virginia.”

‘You Can’t Fully Participate In Society’ Without High-Speed Internet

Despite the funding debates, House Bill 2002 traveled with near-unanimous support as it passed both chambers and their committees.

The legislation offers a credit to consumers whose service is interrupted for more than 24 hours continuously, and at least 30 days notice for any billing changes. All of the new protections are to be overseen by the newly created Office of Broadband, which is supposed to coordinate with the Consumer Protection Division of the state’s office of the attorney general.

The bill eases some regulations for companies who wish to install their broadband telecommunications infrastructure in shared trenches operated by the Division of Highways with other utility companies. But, it also allows local city and county governments to partner with nonprofits and private organizations to install broadband facilities, making open access networks possible.

Outside the capitol, the AARP’s associate state director, Angela Vance, said Wednesday the group “is pleased” with the latest version, especially data-collection provisions to map out which areas in the state have need. Vance said this is aimed at helping state leaders make “data-informed decisions” on broadband deployment.

“I think it’s complex, so it’s not something a lot of people are talking about,” Vance said. “But frankly, we just can’t rely on the federal government to provide that data. We just have to collect it on our own.”

Ultimately, Vance said, better broadband will help AARP members, and the whole state, with disparities that the coronavirus pandemic has highlighted — those for telehealth care access, education and connecting with others.

“It really has just amplified and highlighted the fact that you can’t fully participate in society if you don’t have high-speed internet,” Vance said.

Should the governor sign the bill, it will be one of several broadband-related efforts in the last five years. Those include bills to create a Broadband Enhancement Council, a ‘dig once’ policy for installing broadband infrastructure, and a middle-mile expansion program.

Emily Allen is a Report for America corps member.

Resolution Introduced In W.Va. House Calls For More Study Of Sentencing Reform

A bill to rewrite the state’s criminal code won’t go into effect this year.

Senators agreed on Thursday to pass an amended version of House Bill 2017. That new version reversed course and requested that a newly established sentencing commission weigh in on the bill’s provisions.

House leadership decided Thursday afternoon to refer the bill their Judiciary Committee, which has no plans to consider bills for the rest of the session, basically killing that specific piece of legislation.

However, delegates introduced a resolution Thursday that if adopted would have both House and Senate leaders study some of the original bill’s provisions alongside the sentencing commission’s review.

Work on House Bill 2017 first began in April 2020. Delegates who worked on the bill, including lead sponsor Brandon Steele, R-Raleigh, have described spending months on what ended up being more than 400 pages of legislation.

Although House Bill 2017 was one of the first introduced, it was among the last to pass the House of Delegates on March 31.

The Senate Judiciary Committee received the legislation with nearly a week left to the legislative session.

“It’s an important and impressive piece of work,” said Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Trump during the committee. “And when I talked to Del. Steele, I think he realizes with a week left of the session when we received it, it was going to be absolutely impossible and impractical for the Senate to take it up in any meaningful way.”

Trump said his committee’s amendments to the bill — downsizing it from roughly 400 pages to a couple — was an effort to not let the conversation “wither and die on the vine.”

The sentencing commission that the bill was referred to was created during the 2020 legislative session.

The commission is a 13-member body under the state Department of Homeland Security’s Division of Justice and Community Services. It consists of prosecutors, public defenders, law enforcement representatives, public officials and those from the Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

House Concurrent Resolution 106, introduced Thursday and referred to the House Rules Committee, would also involve members of the Joint Government and Finance Committee in this effort.

But, both chambers must adopt the amendment, should it pass out of the rules committee. The effort has until Saturday.

As it passed the House, the bill revamped most of the offenses in Chapter 61 of state code for “crimes and their punishment.”

Most notably, the bill proposed changes to how people should be sentenced or fined for their crimes.

At present, most of the crimes listed in state code come with their own required jail time and fines for a judge to impose. A majority of these sentences are “indeterminate,” and include the minimum number of years that someone has to wait before they’re parole eligible, along with the maximum amount of time someone might have to spend behind bars.

House Bill 2017 replaced all of the indeterminate sentences with a series of “determinate” options. The legislation offers more discretion to judges than what currently exists by handing them a span of years they can pick from, depending on the severity of the crime.

Opponents to the bill pointed out this new sentencing system would have increased the bottom line people face for jail time — adding at minimum another three months of incarceration for people convicted of more than 200 types of felonies.

Emily Allen is a Report for America corps member.

Senate Judiciary Removes 50-50 Custody From 'Best Interests Of The Child Protection Act'

West Virginia senators have removed a presumption of 50-50 custody from a bill that passed the House of Delegates a month ago, along with a provision to reopen closed child custody cases in which parents were not considered for equal time.

With changes from the Senate Judiciary Committee late Wednesday night, House Bill 2363, dubbed the “Best Interests of the Child Protection Act of 2021,” still advocates for “frequent and continuing contact with both parents” in a divorce or another type of separation as being “in the best interests of the child.”

But instead of starting out with giving each parent 50 percent of a child’s time, the committee agreed that House Bill 2363 should offer family court judges more leeway.

If a judge decides a parent should have more than 65 percent of a child’s time or less than 35 percent, they’re allowed to issue that decision as long as it’s in writing and made with evidence.

The bill gives judges a few new items to consider when devising shared custody plans — that includes the consideration of “parenting” functions in addition to “caretaking” functions.

Caretaking functions are those that address a child’s immediate, physical needs, like changing a diaper, bathing or feeding a child. “Parenting” functions encompass the not-so-obvious ways a parent can provide for a child, like working a job, shelter and transportation.

Lawmakers considered House Bill 2363 and these changes late Wednesday night and early Thursday morning, eventually adjourning just before 2 a.m.

They took nearly two and a half hours of testimony from West Virginia parents, advocates against domestic violence, a family court judge and Del. Geoff Foster, R-Putnam, who is the original bill’s lead sponsor.

“I don’t particularly like the strike-and-insert, the way it came out,” said Foster, referring to the Senate’s modifications to his bill.

Foster said he believed 50-50 was “the fairest starting point” for parents. However, he also said that the Senate’s version of the bill would improve existing law.

Senate Version Won’t Reopen Closed Child Custody Cases

All four parents who testified to the committee asked senators to reject the proposed changes and instead pass the House version of the bill.

These parents — three fathers and one mother, all of whom said they’ve been through the West Virginia family court system — told senators that current law isn’t fair to parents who work full time, nor does it prioritize keeping half siblings together.

“The bottom line is, this bill is the only chance I have for spending more time with my children,” testified Andrew Tennant of Morgantown.

Tennant asked the committee to reject the changes because he favored a provision in the version of the bill that the House passed, which would’ve allowed him to reopen his case once the law changed.

At present, parents can reopen their cases if there’s been a “substantial change in the circumstances of the child” or of either parent. The Senate Judiciary version states that this legislation, if it becomes law, does not count as a change in circumstance.

Tennant, who told senators he is an active-duty member of the U.S. Army, said he agreed to less than 30 percent custody around 2018 because he was stationed in Texas. But now that he’s back in West Virginia, living about half an hour from his kids, he’s been unsuccessful in petitioning the courts for a new shared custody plan.

“This isn’t right. It’s not fair,” Tennant said. “I haven’t done anything. My children haven’t done anything to deserve this.”

‘Even The Most Well-Intended Parents’ Have Struggled With 50-50, Judge Says

Deanna Rock, a family court judge in the Mineral County area, told the committee that there are on average 36,000 family court cases filed in West Virginia each year, all of which have their own facts and stories.

Rock supported the Senate’s amendment because it offered less of a “one-size-fits-all” solution to a problem many parents are frustrated with.

“Even the most well-intended parents sometimes can’t pull it off,” Rock said of 50-50 custody. “It’s a difficult thing to do.”

Samuel White for the West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence also agreed with the Senate’s changes to House Bill 2363.

White said the version of the bill that passed the House would’ve created “a one-size-fits-all solution to a much more complex problem.”

He also said the legislation that passed the House would’ve forced victims of domestic violence to prove in court they were abused in order to obtain a plan that’s not 50-50 custody — under current law, White said victims don’t have to prove they’ve been abused in court to secure all or most of their child’s custody.

“I will say that the strike-and-insert is an improvement in that it allows the court to continue to focus on the best interest of the children in the case,” White said. “It allows the judge who has the parties in front of them to be the person who makes that decision.”

Although testimony lasted hours and senators asked most witnesses several questions, there was no debate on the bill. The legislation is now before the full Senate for consideration.

Emily Allen is a Report for America corps member.

W.Va. Lawmakers Run Out Of Time On Some Election-Themed Bills

With only three days left in the legislative session, Senate Bill 565 — which in 40 pages updates various provisions of the state’s election law — will not leave the House Judiciary Committee in time to pass the lower chamber.

This legislation would have moved the state’s 10-day early voting period back by four days without altering the amount of time made available to those who want to cast a ballot before Election Day.

It would have shortened the time that clerks have to wait before reaching out to households where registered voters might have moved or died, altered absentee ballot application deadlines and updated the Division of Motor Vehicles’ process for automatically registering voters who obtain a West Virginia driver’s license.

The bill also proposed moving the process for contested election results to the circuit court and creating a misdemeanor for interfering with elections.

The secretary of state’s office has said numerous provisions of this bill were to help county clerks by offering more time to prepare for Election Day. However, advocacy groups and organizations for voters’ rights said during a public hearing Monday that some of these provisions risk making the election process less accessible for West Virginians.

In a statement Wednesday, Secretary of State Mac Warner said the House Judiciary Committee requested more time “beyond the current session” to consider the legislation.

“Taking whatever time is necessary to discuss effective administration of elections instills confidence in our process,” Warner said in a written statement.

House Bill 3307 is another elections-related bill bearing support from Warner’s office that hasn’t left the Senate Judiciary Committee, where it was referred after passing the House last Wednesday. The bill would have authorized Warner’s office to approve informational elections content that a social media platform publishes.