In Re: A.A., 17-0315

DHHR filed an abuse and neglect petition (Mar 2016) alleging petitioner J.A. had a history with CPS, domestic violence, substance issues, and had previously relinquished rights to another child; J.A. was incarcerated for felonious assault on the mother when petition was filed.
J.A. stipulated at adjudication that incarceration made him unable to properly care for the child; court ordered a family case plan for both parents.
After J.A.’s parole in Oct 2016, he failed to appear at a scheduled MDT meeting, missed hearings, and was inconsistently in contact with his caseworker; he did not complete parenting classes or random drug screens.
At the dispositional hearing J.A. moved for a post-adjudicatory improvement period but the court found he had not shown likelihood of full participation and had not admitted the extent of domestic violence injuries he caused.
The circuit court denied the improvement period and terminated J.A.’s parental rights (Mar 1, 2017); mother completed an improvement period and the child’s permanency plan is to remain with her.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether J.A. should have been granted a post-adjudicatory improvement period	J.A. asserted willingness to comply with case plan and deserved opportunity after release from incarceration	DHHR and circuit court argued J.A. failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he was likely to fully participate because of missed meetings, hearings, and services	Denied — circuit court did not err in finding J.A. failed to show likelihood of substantial compliance and properly exercised discretion to deny an improvement period
Whether termination of parental rights was erroneous or whether a less-restrictive alternative was required	J.A. argued his (minimal) participation in services warranted consideration of less-restrictive options than termination	DHHR and court argued no reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected due to minimal compliance, continued domestic-violence denial, missed services, and risk to child’s welfare	Affirmed — court found statutory grounds for termination met (no reasonable likelihood of substantial correction; termination necessary for child’s welfare)

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (standard of review for circuit-court fact findings in abuse-and-neglect cases)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (treatment of circuit court findings in appeals)
In re: M.M., 236 W.Va. 108, 778 S.E.2d 338 (2015) (circuit court discretion to grant or deny improvement periods)
In re Katie S., 198 W.Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (1996) (court discretion regarding improvement periods under statutory requirements)
In re R.J.M., 164 W.Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (1980) (termination may be employed without less-restrictive alternatives when no reasonable likelihood of correction exists)
In re Kristin Y., 227 W.Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (2011) (application of statutory grounds for termination)