In re D.P. and G.P. and In re A.O., D.P., and G.P.
20-0631 and 20-0632
| W. Va. | Nov 9, 2021Background
- May 2017: DHHR removed A.O. (3, severe autism) and D.P. after A.O. was found wandering unsupervised twice; petition for neglect (inadequate supervision) filed; parents stipulated and received post-adjudicatory improvement periods.
- G.P. was born during proceedings (added by amended petition in Sept. 2018); parents again stipulated and received an improvement period for G.P.
- Parents’ compliance fluctuated: periods of full participation were followed by lapses (housing instability, sporadic visits, months without contact); visitation supervisors described visits as chaotic and unsafe for mother to care for all three children alone.
- Circuit court found parents had started to improve but progress was insufficient; concluded there was no reasonable likelihood conditions of neglect could be substantially corrected in the near future and terminated mother’s rights to A.O., D.P., G.P., and father’s rights to D.P. and G.P.
- Supreme Court affirmed termination, but reprimanded the circuit court for repeatedly extending post-adjudicatory improvement periods well beyond statutory time limits without making required findings.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner’s Argument | DHHR / Guardian’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was improper because a less-restrictive alternative (return of one or two children) should have been used | Parents: evidence showed capability to care for at least one/two children; court should have allowed retention of rights to some children | No reasonable likelihood conditions can be substantially corrected; children (esp. under 3) need stability; court not required to exhaust speculative alternatives | Affirmed: court may terminate without using less-restrictive alternatives when no reasonable likelihood of correction (In re R.J.M.) |
| Whether parents showed sufficient remediation to regain custody | Parents: participated in services and improved at times, so termination was premature | Compliance was inconsistent, services not implemented, visits remained chaotic and supervisors lacked confidence in parents’ solo caregiving | Affirmed: record supports circuit court’s finding of insufficient, inconsistent improvement and no reasonable likelihood of correction |
| Whether lengthy, repeated extensions of post-adjudicatory improvement periods were lawful and affect the outcome | Implicitly: extensions permitted by court practice or for parent rehabilitation | Court should have followed statutory time limits; extensions lacked required findings; delay harmed children’s permanency | Court condemned the procedural violations (extensions exceeded statutory limits without findings) but held the statutory error did not change the result; termination affirmed |
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 fact findings in abuse/neglect cases)
- In re R.J.M., 164 W. Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (1980) (less-restrictive alternative rule; termination may be used when no reasonable likelihood of correction)
- In re J.G., 240 W. Va. 194, 809 S.E.2d 453 (2018) (statutory time limits for improvement periods are mandatory; courts must make required findings to extend)
- In Interest of Carlita B., 185 W. Va. 613, 408 S.E.2d 365 (1991) (child abuse/neglect matters require expedited handling; delays harm child development)