In Re: A.H. and D.M., 17-0386

DHHR filed an abuse-and-neglect petition (Sept. 2016) alleging Father N.H. committed repeated acts of domestic violence in the children’s presence, including choking incidents and physical assaults.
Prior CPS involvement beginning in 2012 with services provided (psychological evaluation, anger management, parenting classes, individualized skills) but continued reports of violence through 2013–2016.
Children and witnesses (mother and grandmother) reported witnessing violent acts; one child was diagnosed with PTSD tied to the incidents.
Father was incarcerated and had probation revoked after a domestic-violence incident; criminal sentence of 1–3 years was reinstated.
Circuit court adjudicated Father as an abusing parent, denied an improvement period, and at dispositional hearing found no reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected; terminated Father’s parental rights (Mar. 30, 2017).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Father N.H.)	Defendant's Argument (DHHR / Guardian)	Held
Whether termination was in children’s best interests	Termination was premature; children were placed with nonoffending mothers so additional time until his release would not prejudice them	Father’s history of ongoing domestic violence and failure to benefit from services established danger to children and need for termination	Affirmed: termination was in children’s best interests
Whether there was reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected	Father argued additional time could permit rehabilitation upon release	DHHR pointed to long record (since 2012) of persistent violence despite services, incl. recent choking causing loss of consciousness	Affirmed: no reasonable likelihood of substantial correction
Whether an improvement period should have been granted	Father sought more time/improvement period despite incarceration	Circuit court relied on continued violence, service noncompliance, and public-safety concerns to deny an improvement period	Affirmed: denial appropriate under facts
Whether less-restrictive alternatives were required before termination	Father argued termination unnecessary because children were placed with fit relatives	DHHR/guardian argued statute and precedent allow termination of an abusive parent’s rights even if the other parent/custodian is suitable	Affirmed: termination may be used without less-restrictive alternatives when correction unlikely

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (standard of review/deference to circuit court findings in abuse-and-neglect cases)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (articulating applicable review standard for parental-termination findings)
In re Katie S., 198 W.Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (1996) (termination may be used without intervening less-restrictive alternatives where correction is unlikely)
In re Emily, 208 W.Va. 325, 540 S.E.2d 542 (2000) (one parent’s fitness does not guarantee the other parent retains rights when that parent endangered the child)