In Re: I.C., B.C., W.C., and J.C.-1, 17-0240

Background

DHHR filed abuse-and-neglect petition (June 2016) after CPS found children living in unsanitary, unsafe conditions (feces on children and bedding, shared mattress, developmental delays); parents alleged to have failed to provide necessities.
Petitioner (father) had a domestic-violence protective order restricting contact; DHHR initially alleged neglect based on home conditions and later amended to add substance-abuse allegations after petitioner failed a drug screen and refused a second.
Circuit court ordered remedial services, drug screens, and visitation conditioned on negative screens; petitioner failed screens, refused further screening, failed to engage in services, and did not appear at key hearings (represented by counsel).
At adjudication the court incorporated prior testimony and evidence (including reference to the protective order), found petitioner abused and neglected the children (domestic violence, substance abuse, failure to protect), and restricted visits without a negative drug screen.
At disposition the court found no reasonable likelihood petitioner could correct conditions, terminated his parental rights, and denied post-termination visitation; petitioner appealed raising procedural and sufficiency arguments.

Issues

Issue	Petitioner’s Argument	DHHR / Respondent’s Argument	Held
1) Amendment of petition to add substance-abuse allegations	Amendment improper because drug use occurred when children were not in his custody and thus cannot support neglect allegations	Rule 19 permits amendment before adjudication; parent’s substance abuse can threaten child welfare even if children were not physically present	Court: Amendment allowed; no error (Rule 19; neglect can arise from present inability to provide necessities)
2) Sufficiency of evidence to adjudicate as abusing/neglecting parent	No proof he used drugs or committed domestic violence in children’s presence; parenting not shown to be impaired	Evidence of failed drug screen, refusal to screen, pending protective order, children’s unsafe home, and petitioner’s failure to act supported adjudication	Court: Adjudication affirmed; evidence met clear-and-convincing standard
3) Termination of parental rights	Termination was premature; less-restrictive alternatives available; services inadequate to address alleged defects	Petitioner failed to participate in ordered services, visits, and screens; statutory factors show no reasonable likelihood of correction	Court: Termination affirmed under West Virginia Code § 49-4-604 (no reasonable likelihood conditions can be corrected)
4) Failure to provide Rule 30 dispositional witness disclosure	DHHR’s lack of Rule 30 disclosure deprived petitioner of notice and fair process	Petitioner failed to object at trial; Rule 30 noncompliance was waived	Court: Issue waived for appeal; no relief granted
5) Denial of post-termination visitation	Petitioner contends bond with children merits visitation	No evidence of a meaningful bond; petitioner did not pursue supervised visitation during case and poses risk given substance abuse	Court: Denial affirmed; post-termination visitation not in children’s best interests

Key Cases Cited

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (W. Va. 1996) (standard for reviewing circuit-court factual findings in bench trials)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (W. Va. 2011) (summary of standard of review cited in this opinion)
In re Joseph A., 199 W.Va. 438, 485 S.E.2d 176 (W. Va. 1997) (DHHR burden to prove conditions by clear and convincing evidence)
In re Katie S., 198 W.Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (W. Va. 1996) (parental interest in visitation as factor for potential improvement)
In re R.J.M., 164 W.Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (W. Va. 1980) (termination may be used without less-restrictive alternatives when no likelihood of correcting conditions)
In re Kristin Y., 227 W.Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (W. Va. 2011) (standards for termination under statutory framework)
In re Christina L., 194 W.Va. 446, 460 S.E.2d 692 (W. Va. 1995) (factors for considering post-termination visitation)
In re Daniel D., 211 W.Va. 79, 562 S.E.2d 147 (W. Va. 2002) (visitation after termination; best-interest factors)
State v. Michael M., 202 W.Va. 350, 504 S.E.2d 177 (W. Va. 1998) (priority of securing suitable adoptive home in permanency planning)
James M. v. Maynard, 185 W.Va. 648, 408 S.E.2d 400 (W. Va. 1991) (guardian ad litem role continues until children placed in permanent home)