In re A.D., L.D., and C.D.
21-0697
| W. Va. | Feb 1, 2022Background:
- DHHR filed abuse-and-neglect petition (June 2020) after nine‑year‑old C.D. disclosed parents’ drug use and failures to provide food, hygiene, supervision, and safe visitors; petitioner tested positive for methamphetamine.
- Circuit court adjudicated petitioner (M.D.) an abusing parent (July 2020) and granted a post‑adjudicatory improvement period requiring parenting/adult‑life classes, random drug screens, suitable housing, and supervised visits (contingent on negative screens).
- Petitioner initially complied and obtained unsupervised visits, but later relapsed, missed drug screens, left a rehabilitation program, and ceased participation in required services; visits were suspended when he could not be located for screening.
- At disposition (July 2021) DHHR recommended termination; petitioner testified he disputed a May 2021 positive screen, had been approved for HUD housing assistance, and would resume screens but admitted he had not completed classes or obtained stable housing or employment.
- Circuit court found petitioner failed to remedy conditions, there was no reasonable likelihood of substantial correction in the near future, and termination was necessary for the children’s welfare; August 5, 2021 order terminated petitioner’s parental rights.
- West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed (Feb. 1, 2022), applying the clearly erroneous standard to the circuit court’s factual findings.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was appropriate under WV Code §49‑4‑604(c)(6) (no reasonable likelihood of correction) | M.D.: had multiple negative screens earlier, recently approved for HUD assistance, willing to resume screens, should be given more time to complete services | DHHR/Court: petitioner relapsed, failed treatment, missed/ceased drug screens, never secured housing or employment, did not complete services | Affirmed: court found no reasonable likelihood of correction and termination necessary for children’s welfare |
| Whether petitioner followed through with the family case plan | M.D.: services/classes were not arranged and communication problems with CPS prevented compliance | DHHR: petitioner missed multiple screens, left rehab, failed to complete classes, and failed to obtain suitable housing | Held: petitioner did not follow through; continuation or insubstantial diminution of threatening conditions persisted |
| Whether the court erred by not granting additional time/less restrictive alternative | M.D.: requested more time to comply and cure deficiencies | DHHR/Court: courts need not wait on speculative parental improvement when child welfare is threatened | Held: termination appropriate without further delay; welfare of children prioritized |
| Sufficiency of evidence supporting adjudication and dispositional findings (drug use and child disclosures) | M.D.: disputed positive meth screen and circumstances of missed screens | DHHR/Court: child disclosures and positive drug screen supported findings | Held: circuit court’s factual findings plausible and not clearly erroneous; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (standard of review: findings of fact in bench trials not set aside unless clearly erroneous)
- In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (termination standard and ends of improvement periods; courts need not exhaust speculative possibilities)
- In re R.J.M., 164 W.Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (1980) (termination of parental rights may be used without less restrictive alternatives when no reasonable likelihood of correction)
- In re Kristin Y., 227 W. Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (2011) (reiterating statutory framework for termination under WV Code §49‑4‑604)