In Re: A.N.-2
17-0534
| W. Va. | Nov 22, 2017Background
- DHHR filed an abuse-and-neglect petition (Dec 2015) after the child was allegedly exposed to substances in utero; mother had substance issues and the child was removed.
- Father (A.N.-2) was incarcerated in Michigan throughout the proceedings; initial preliminary hearing found him unavailable for placement.
- Father initially denied paternity but later acknowledged he believed the child was his and requested paternity testing; Michigan corrections did not cooperate and testing was never completed.
- At adjudication father appeared by teleconference, claimed he provided some items through family, but DHHR presented testimony he had no direct contact, no verifiable financial support, and could not care for the child due to incarceration.
- Circuit court adjudicated father as an abusing/neglecting parent based on incarceration, abandonment, and financial/emotional neglect; at disposition it found no reasonable likelihood the conditions could be corrected and terminated his parental rights (Mar 15, 2017).
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner's Argument | State/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by not enforcing paternity testing | Court should have enforced paternity testing before adjudication | Court permissibly proceeded because both parents testified father believed he was the biological parent and adjudication could be set aside if testing later disproved paternity | No error; proceeding without test was reasonable to avoid delay and could be set aside later |
| Whether adjudication for abandonment/financial neglect was improper | Father argued abandonment requires affirmative/negative acts and he provided support through family | DHHR showed lack of direct contact, no verifiable support, and long-term incarceration preventing parental duties | No error; facts met statutory definitions of abandonment and neglect |
| Whether termination of parental rights was improper given father's desire for relationship | Father contended he wanted a relationship and provided some support items | State argued incarceration made participation and correction of conditions unlikely; child’s welfare required permanency | No error; termination warranted because no reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected and termination served child’s welfare |
| Whether the circuit court abused discretion by not delaying for paternity or alternatives to termination | Father sought delay or less drastic alternatives citing paternity uncertainty and sporadic assistance | Court prioritized timely permanency and found no alternative could ensure child’s well‑being given incarceration and potential long-term confinement | No error; court’s focus on expedited resolution and child’s best interests was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (standard of review and deference to circuit court findings in abuse/neglect bench trials)
- In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (restating standard of review for abuse/neglect proceedings)
- In re Amy M. v. Kaufman, 196 W.Va. 251, 470 S.E.2d 205 (1996) (children’s right to timely resolution and permanency)
- In re Erica C., 214 W.Va. 375, 589 S.E.2d 517 (2003) (courts must avoid unnecessary delays in abuse and neglect proceedings)