In Re: A.B.
16-1103
| W. Va. | Jun 9, 2017Background
- Child sustained serious injuries in a car accident while in petitioner L.P.’s vehicle; petitioner tested positive for alcohol, benzodiazepines, and methamphetamine and admitted methamphetamine use.
- DHHR filed an abuse and neglect petition alleging substance-impaired driving with the child and truancy.
- Petitioner admitted illegal substance abuse and intravenous methamphetamine use at adjudication and refused to identify her drug source.
- Petitioner moved for post-adjudicatory improvement periods twice; the circuit court denied both motions for failure to comply with orders (drug testing, MDT meetings) and for lack of likelihood of remedial progress.
- At disposition the circuit court found no reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected, terminated petitioner’s parental rights, and placed the child with the grandmother for adoption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (L.P.) | Defendant's Argument (DHHR/Circuit) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of an improvement period for refusing to name drug dealer was improper | Naming the dealer could threaten safety; confidentiality protects identity; refusal should not bar improvement period | Refusal was one factor but petitioner also failed to comply with required services, so improvement period denial was proper | Denial proper: refusal to identify dealer not sole basis; petitioner failed to meet burden for improvement period |
| Whether petitioner demonstrated likelihood to fully participate in an improvement period | She sought an improvement period and contested reliance on the refusal to identify dealer | Petitioner failed to attend drug testing and MDT meetings as ordered, and offered no credible excuse | Denial affirmed: petitioner did not show by clear and convincing evidence she would fully participate |
| Whether termination was excessive; whether less-restrictive alternatives required | Requested a less-restrictive alternative (improvement period) instead of termination | Court found habitual substance addiction that impaired parenting and failure to follow treatment; no reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected | Termination affirmed: conditions not correctable in near future; termination necessary for child’s welfare |
| Whether petitioner was denied a meaningful hearing or prejudiced by DHHR failing to provide Rule 30 disclosure | Argued summary dismissal of renewed motion and missing DHHR disclosure denied meaningful opportunity to be heard | Court noted parent had opportunity to be heard; DHHR presented no witnesses at disposition so disclosure not required | No reversible error: petitioner had opportunity to be heard; lack of DHHR disclosure harmless when no witnesses presented |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223 (1996) (standard of review for bench factual findings in abuse and neglect cases)
- In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89 (2011) (bench deference and standards applied in child welfare appeals)
- In re R.J.M., 164 W.Va. 496 (1980) (termination may be used without intervening less-restrictive alternatives when correction unlikely)
- In re Kristin Y., 227 W.Va. 558 (2011) (affirming circumstances permitting termination under statutory standard)