In Re: A.L.
17-0256
| W. Va. | Sep 5, 2017Background
- In Aug 2015 a neighbor reported hearing a child being hit; CPS found welts, bruises, dried mud, and soiled clothing on the child living with petitioner (father) and the mother.
- DHHR filed an abuse-and-neglect petition alleging physical abuse; preliminary finding of imminent danger due to nonaccidental trauma.
- DHHR later amended the petition to include petitioner’s prior out-of-state proceedings: between 2007–2011 his parental rights to six children were terminated (two voluntarily, four involuntarily), and he is a registered sex offender.
- Petitioner stipulated at adjudication (Jan 2016) to abusing the child by excessive corporal punishment; he moved for a post-adjudicatory improvement period, which the DHHR and guardian opposed.
- Circuit court denied an improvement period and, after a dispositional hearing, found no reasonable likelihood petitioner could correct conditions and terminated his parental, custodial, and guardianship rights (Mar 1, 2017).
- On appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed, rejecting petitioner’s challenges to the denial of an improvement period and to termination; DHHR was not required to provide reunification efforts because of aggravated circumstances (prior involuntary terminations).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner should have been granted a post-adjudicatory improvement period | W.L.: court erred in denying an improvement period; not a “rare” pointless case | DHHR/guardian: petitioner failed to show by clear and convincing evidence likelihood of full participation; prior history shows services did not help | Denial upheld—petitioner failed to show likelihood of full participation; court has discretion under §49-4-610(2)(B) |
| Whether DHHR was required to provide reunification services | W.L.: he wasn’t given opportunity to improve because DHHR did not offer services | DHHR: aggravated circumstances (prior involuntary terminations) relieve DHHR of the duty to make reasonable efforts | Affirmed—aggravated circumstances (prior involuntary terminations) removed DHHR’s obligation to make reasonable efforts |
| Whether termination of parental, custodial, and guardianship rights was proper | W.L.: termination was erroneous because no improvement period and lack of services prevented remedy | DHHR: no reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected given petitioner’s history and prior failed services; termination allowed without less-restrictive alternatives | Affirmed—termination proper where no reasonable likelihood of substantial correction; termination is proper absent less-restrictive alternatives |
| Court’s duty re: permanency after termination | N/A (remedial issue) | Parties: permanency plan is adoption; foster parents and a relative wish to adopt | Court reiterated obligation to hold placement reviews every 3 months and secure permanent placement within 12 months per procedural rules |
Key Cases Cited
- In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (W. Va. 1996) (standard of review for circuit court factual findings in abuse and neglect cases)
- In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (W. Va. 2011) (appellate review and standards applied)
- In re Rebecca K.C., 213 W.Va. 230, 579 S.E.2d 718 (W. Va. 2013) (discussion of when improvement periods may be pointless)
- In re M.M., 236 W.Va. 108, 778 S.E.2d 338 (W. Va. 2015) (circuit court discretion to grant or deny improvement periods)
- In re Katie S., 198 W.Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (W. Va. 1996) (discretionary nature of improvement periods)
- In re R.J.M., 164 W.Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (W. Va. 1980) (termination may be used without intervening less restrictive alternatives when no reasonable likelihood of correction)
- In re Kristin Y., 227 W.Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (W. Va. 2011) (termination standards reiterated)
- State v. Michael M., 202 W.Va. 350, 504 S.E.2d 177 (W. Va. 1998) (priority of securing a suitable adoptive home in permanent-placement determinations)
- James M. v. Maynard, 185 W.Va. 648, 408 S.E.2d 400 (W. Va. 1991) (guardian ad litem role continues until child placed in permanent home)