In Re: A.W.-1 and A.W.-2, 17-0685

DHHR filed abuse-and-neglect petition (Oct 2016) alleging J.W.’s long criminal history, substance abuse, abandonment of children, and exposure to domestic violence; mother had drug history and created a dangerous home.
At petition filing, J.W. was on community corrections supervision for prior felony convictions with suspended sentences.
J.W. failed required drug screens, admitted ongoing controlled-substance abuse, absconded from community corrections, left his residence, lost his job, and his whereabouts became unknown; his prior suspended sentences were reinstated after violations.
J.W. did not appear at the adjudicatory hearing; the court found abandonment, domestic violence, and failure to support the children.
At dispositional hearing J.W. (incarcerated) acknowledged he could not comply with an improvement period; the circuit court found no reasonable likelihood of substantial correction in the near future and terminated his parental rights (June 30, 2017).
Children were placed with maternal grandparents; permanency plan is adoption. J.W. appealed solely arguing the court failed to consider less-restrictive dispositional alternatives.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court erred by terminating parental rights without considering less-restrictive alternatives	J.W.: Court should have considered less-restrictive dispositional alternatives because he relapsed after sobriety and wanted a relationship with children	DHHR/guardian: Evidence showed J.W. repeatedly abused drugs, absconded, violated supervision, and could not complete rehabilitative plans; termination appropriate	Affirmed: termination permitted without intervening less-restrictive measures where no reasonable likelihood of substantial correction exists
Whether evidence supported finding of no reasonable likelihood of correction	J.W.: asserted desire to continue relationship and past sobriety	DHHR/guardian: continuous substance abuse, failure to follow community corrections rules, absconding, and incarceration show lack of response to rehabilitative efforts	Affirmed: record supports finding that J.W. did not respond to case plan and conditions were unlikely to be corrected
Whether termination served children’s best interests and welfare	J.W.: less-restrictive alternative could protect parental relationship	DHHR/guardian: children’s welfare required permanency; placed with maternal grandparents for adoption	Affirmed: termination consistent with children’s best interests and welfare

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (W.Va. 1996) (standard of review and clearly erroneous rule for circuit-court factual findings)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (W.Va. 2011) (reiterating standard of review in abuse-and-neglect proceedings)
In re Katie S., 198 W.Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (W.Va. 1996) (termination may be ordered without intervening less-restrictive alternatives when no reasonable likelihood conditions can be corrected)