In re E.J. and H.J., 21-0061

DHHR filed an abuse-and-neglect petition (Jan 2020) alleging parents exposed children to methamphetamine use, domestic violence, unsafe conditions, and medical/educational neglect; father allegedly drove while high with children in the vehicle and passed out on multiple occasions.
Child H.J. (8) reported witnessing family fights and acting as caregiver for sibling E.J. (6); both children had excessive absences/tardies and exhibited distress at school.
At a January preliminary hearing father proffered recent methamphetamine use; throughout the case he repeatedly missed hearings, failed drug screens, and was largely non‑communicative with counsel.
Mother testified to father’s physical and emotional abuse; CPS reported father had no contact with the children during the proceedings and the children expressed no desire to see him.
Circuit court adjudicated father as abusing/neglecting, held a dispositional hearing, and terminated father’s parental rights (Dec. 29, 2020) finding no reasonable likelihood conditions would be corrected and termination was necessary for the children’s welfare; mother successfully completed an improvement period and retained custody.
Father appealed solely arguing the court should have used a less‑restrictive disposition (citing WV Code §49‑4‑604(c)(5)) because permanency was already achieved through mother’s custody; Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Petitioner’s Argument	Respondent’s Argument	Held
Whether the circuit court erred in terminating father’s parental rights instead of imposing a less‑restrictive disposition	Father: Court should have used a less‑restrictive dispositional alternative (§49‑4‑604(c)(5)); permanency existed via mother’s custody and father could remedy issues with time (treatment, counseling, resolve criminal matters).	DHHR/Mother: Father repeatedly failed to participate in drug screens/services, continued substance abuse, missed hearings, had no bond with children; therefore no reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected and termination was necessary.	Affirmed: termination proper—father’s ongoing substance abuse, nonparticipation, and lack of bond showed no reasonable likelihood of correction; termination may be ordered even if other parent retains custody.

In re Tiffany Marie S., 196 W. Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (standard of review for bench‑trial findings of fact).
In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (restating standard of review for abuse and neglect findings).
In re B.S., 242 W. Va. 123, 829 S.E.2d 754 (2019) (distinguished: retention of parental rights where parent demonstrated sustained drug‑free period).
In re Emily, 208 W. Va. 325, 540 S.E.2d 542 (2000) (one parent’s fitness does not prevent termination of the other parent’s rights).
In re R.J.M., 164 W. Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (1980) (termination is the most drastic remedy and may be used without intervening less‑restrictive alternatives when correction is unlikely).
In re Kristin Y., 227 W. Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (2011) (citing R.J.M. for when termination without less‑restrictive alternatives is appropriate).