In Re: D.H. and E.H., 17-0238

Background

DHHR removed D.H. (age ~20 months) in 2014 and later added newborn E.H.; parents’ home was filthy, lacked electricity, heated unsafely, and the child was found “absolutely filthy.”
Petitioner (father J.H.) admitted neglect in 2014 and was ordered to complete parenting, adult life skills, and follow psychological recommendations; supervised visitation and financial assistance were provided.
Petitioner underwent psychological evaluations in 2014 (guarded prognosis) and 2016 (poor prognosis; evaluator concluded further interventions were unlikely to help).
The circuit court repeatedly extended improvement periods and increased services (including ~12 hours/week in‑home life skills training) after reports of continued problems (e.g., lice, admitted marijuana use).
Despite intensive services over multiple years, petitioner failed to remedy the conditions or implement learned skills; DHHR and guardian sought termination and the circuit court terminated parental rights in February 2017.

Issues

Issue	Petitioner’s Argument	DHHR/Respondent’s Argument	Held
Whether there was a reasonable likelihood petitioner could substantially correct abuse/neglect in the near future	Petitioner argued he participated in services and obtained suitable housing, so conditions could be corrected with more time	DHHR argued petitioner failed to remedy conditions despite extensive, intensified services and poor psychological prognosis	Court held there was no reasonable likelihood petitioner could substantially correct conditions and affirmed termination under WV Code § 49‑6‑5(a)(6)
Whether DHHR provided reasonable reunification services given petitioner’s intellectual limitations	Petitioner argued termination required a thorough effort to determine if intensive long‑term assistance could enable parenting (citing authority requiring such efforts)	DHHR argued it provided escalating, intensive services (including 12 hours/week in‑home training) and the second evaluation indicated continued services were unlikely to help	Court held DHHR’s efforts were sufficient; services were increased and a determination was made that continued services were unlikely to benefit petitioner
Whether petitioner should have been granted additional time/extensions	Petitioner requested more time to demonstrate improvement	DHHR noted multiple prior extensions and intensified services over the years	Court held petitioner had already been granted multiple extensions and more intensive services; additional time was not warranted
Whether termination was in the children’s best interests	Petitioner contended compliance with some services and testimony of suitable housing supported reunification	Guardian and DHHR maintained children’s safety required termination given persistent harmful conditions	Court held termination served the children’s best interests due to persistent conditions and lack of meaningful parental progress

Key Cases Cited

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (standard of review for circuit court factual findings in abuse/neglect cases)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (reciting applicable standard of appellate review)
In re R.J.M., 164 W.Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (1980) (termination may be used without less restrictive alternatives when no reasonable likelihood conditions can be corrected)
In re Kristin Y., 227 W.Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (2011) (affirming termination where no reasonable likelihood of correction exists)
In re Billy Joe M., 206 W.Va. 1, 521 S.E.2d 173 (1999) (when neglect is tied to intellectual incapacity, thorough effort to assess intensive long‑term assistance is required)
In re Maranda T., 223 W.Va. 512, 678 S.E.2d 18 (2009) (discussing application of Billy Joe M. principles)
In re B.H., 233 W.Va. 57, 754 S.E.2d 743 (2014) (best‑interests standard governs dispositional decisions)