In Re: A.L and J.L., 16-1232

DHHR filed abuse-and-neglect petitions in June 2015 after allegations of physical abuse to A.L. at his father’s home and concerns about J.L.’s truancy, substance use, behavioral diagnoses, and the parents’ failure to provide adequate food, clothing, supervision, and housing.
Petitioner (mother) lived in a single-bedroom home with multiple family members in unsanitary conditions; the court found odor and filth rendered the residence unsuitable for children.
Petitioner failed to cooperate with services and with law enforcement (allowed J.L. to remain in the home after a capias and refused to report his whereabouts).
Petitioner did not attend the adjudicatory or dispositional hearings (was represented by counsel); the court adjudicated her an abusing parent and found no reasonable likelihood she could correct conditions.
The circuit court terminated mother’s parental rights to both children on November 29, 2016, and denied post-termination visitation; children were placed (or to be placed) with maternal grandparents.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mother)	Defendant's Argument (DHHR/Court)	Held
Whether termination of parental rights was proper	Mother argued she did not actively abuse and that conditions could be addressed without terminating rights; requested less-restrictive alternative (permanent custody while preserving rights)	DHHR and circuit court argued mother failed to correct conditions, refused services, maintained unsuitable home, and obstructed law enforcement regarding J.L.	Affirmed: termination proper because no reasonable likelihood conditions could be substantially corrected and termination was necessary for children’s welfare
Whether court erred by not considering less-restrictive alternatives	Mother urged less-restrictive dispositions given children’s ages and low adoption prospects	Court relied on statutory standard and mother’s noncompliance and the ongoing risks to children	Affirmed: less-restrictive alternatives were not required where statutory criteria for termination were met
Whether denial of post-termination visitation was error	Mother argued children wanted visitation and were older	DHHR/court argued record shows no evidence visitation would not be detrimental given mother’s noncompliance and interference with authorities	Affirmed: denial of visitation proper because visitation would likely be detrimental to children’s best interests

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (W. Va. 1996) (standard of review for circuit-court findings in abuse and neglect bench trials)
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 conditions can be corrected)
In re Kristin Y., 227 W.Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (W. Va. 2011) (reiterating statutory grounds and standards for termination)
In re Christina L., 194 W.Va. 446, 460 S.E.2d 692 (W. Va. 1995) (factors for considering post-termination visitation — bond, child’s wishes, and whether visitation is detrimental)
In re Daniel D., 211 W.Va. 79, 562 S.E.2d 147 (W. Va. 2002) (affirming standards for post-termination contact considerations)