In Re Cecil T.
228 W. Va. 89
| W. Va. | 2011Background
- Cecil T. was born September 6, 2008; DHHR filed a petition seeking custody due to imminent danger.
- The mother’s parental rights were terminated in a prior proceeding, with DHHR retaining custody.
- The father received custody after an improvement period but was later arrested and incarcerated for federal firearms offenses.
- A second petition for immediate custody was filed after the father's arrest; Cecil T. was placed with the paternal grandmother temporarily.
- Appellants (foster parents) moved to intervene and sought termination of the father's rights for a permanent placement plan.
- The circuit court denied termination; Appellants appealed, and the WV Supreme Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for termination and permanent placement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether incarceration alone supports termination of parental rights | Appellants: incarceration is not per se termination; best interests require termination here | Appellee: absence of strong evidence beyond incarceration; no termination needed | No; incarceration can support termination when best interests require it |
| Whether the 18-month permanent placement deadline was violated | Appellants: delay violates Rule 43 and undermines permanency | Appellee: no clear statutory barrier to temporary arrangements | Yes; permanence must be established within 18 months unless extraordinary reasons exist |
| Whether the lower court erred in not adopting termination based on conditions that cannot be corrected | Appellants: conditions cannot be corrected due to father's incarceration | Appellee: conditions could be corrected with time and circumstances | Yes; record supports termination as conditions cannot be substantially corrected in near future |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Emily, 208 W. Va. 325 (2000) (dispositional timing and permanency safeguards; avoid indefinite delays)
- Acton v. Flowers, 154 W. Va. 209 (1970) (per se rule on incarceration not automatic termination)
- In re Brian James D., 209 W. Va. 537 (2001) (incarceration alone not termination; other factors matter)
- In re R.J.M., 164 W. Va. 496 (1980) (premature or delayed permanency; welfare of child paramount)
- In re Katie S., 198 W. Va. 79 (1996) (health/welfare priority; permanency goals)