In Re: B.W. and G.W., 17-0536

DHHR filed abuse-and-neglect petition (May 2016) after children were left with maternal grandfather and parents had no contact/support.
Father (D.W.) moved to Arkansas in 2012–2013 and thereafter had no contact, did not pay child support, and provided no financial, emotional, or material support.
At adjudicatory hearing witnesses and father testified consistently that he abandoned the children; father admitted at disposition that he had abandoned them.
Circuit court adjudicated father as an abusing parent for abandonment and neglect and denied an improvement period.
Circuit court terminated father’s parental rights (May 19, 2017); children placed with maternal grandfather with goal of adoption.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supported adjudication for abandonment/abuse by clear and convincing evidence	Father argued abandonment finding was speculative and insufficient	DHHR and guardian relied on father’s prolonged noncontact, nonpayment, and admissions	Court held evidence was sufficient; father abandoned children and adjudication affirmed
Whether father was entitled to a post-adjudicatory improvement period	Father argued court erred by terminating rights without first granting improvement period	State argued father filed no written motion and failed to prove likelihood of fully participating	Court held no error: no written motion, father failed to demonstrate ability/willingness to participate; denial affirmed
Whether conditions could be substantially corrected such that termination was unnecessary	Father suggested circumstances could be remedied with services	State argued prolonged abandonment and lack of effort to remedy supported no reasonable likelihood of correction	Court held no reasonable likelihood of substantial correction; termination appropriate
Whether termination was necessary for children’s welfare	Father argued he would comply with services if offered	State/guardian pointed to children’s need for permanency and father’s long-term abandonment	Court held termination necessary for welfare and affirmed termination

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (standard of review for circuit-court findings of fact in abuse-and-neglect cases)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (standard of review statement)
Brown v. Gobble, 196 W.Va. 559, 474 S.E.2d 489 (1996) (defines clear-and-convincing proof standard)
In re F.S. and Z.S., 233 W.Va. 538, 759 S.E.2d 769 (2014) (discussion of abandonment and proof)
In re Timber M., 231 W.Va. 44, 743 S.E.2d 352 (2013) (acknowledgment of problem required for improvement period to be effective)
In re R.J.M., 164 W.Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (1980) (termination may be used without less restrictive alternatives when correction unlikely)
In re Kristin Y., 227 W.Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (2011) (syllabus on termination standard)
In re Katie S., 198 W.Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (1996) (court discretion to grant improvement period)
In re Charity H., 215 W.Va. 208, 599 S.E.2d 631 (2004) (parent must show by clear and convincing evidence likelihood of fully participating in improvement period)