In Re: A.N. and N.N.-1, 17-0105

DHHR filed abuse-and-neglect petition (Apr 2016) alleging domestic violence in children’s presence, drug trafficking in the home, petitioner’s arrest for drug conspiracy, and IV drug use in the home.
Petitioner (father, N.N.-2) waived preliminary hearing and at adjudication (May 2016) stipulated to abuse/neglect based on his substance abuse and received a post-adjudicatory improvement period.
During review, petitioner had multiple positive opiate screens; DHHR recommended continuation of the improvement period.
At the dispositional hearing (Dec 2016) petitioner failed to appear; DHHR testified he was noncompliant with the improvement plan: did not complete adult life skills, had sporadic visitation, failed to submit to random screens, and remaining screens were positive.
Circuit court (Jan 11, 2017) found no reasonable likelihood petitioner could substantially correct conditions, terminated his parental rights to both children; petitioned appeals this termination.

Issue	Petitioner’s Argument	DHHR / Guardian’s Argument	Held
Whether termination of parental rights was improper because a less-restrictive alternative (terminating only custodial rights) should have been used	The circuit court should have chosen a less-restrictive remedy instead of terminating parental rights	Petitioner failed to comply with the improvement plan (positive drug tests, poor participation, sporadic visitation) and termination was necessary for children’s welfare	Affirmed: termination proper under W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(b)(6) because no reasonable likelihood conditions could be substantially corrected given noncompliance

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (W. Va. 1996) (standard of review for circuit-court fact findings in abuse and neglect cases)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (W. Va. 2011) (definitions and standards for "no reasonable likelihood" and termination under child welfare statutes)
State v. Michael M., 202 W.Va. 350, 504 S.E.2d 177 (W. Va. 1998) (procedural guidance cited in opinion)
James M. v. Maynard, 185 W.Va. 648, 408 S.E.2d 400 (W. Va. 1991) (scope of guardian ad litem’s role in abuse and neglect proceedings)