In re: J.A.,A.A.,Z.A.,S.A., and J.A., 833 S.E.2d 487

Background

DHHR filed an abuse-and-neglect petition (Feb. 2018) for five minor children alleging long‑standing physical and educational neglect: filthy home, pet waste, foul odors, untreated lice, and massive school absenteeism.
The family had recurrent DHHR involvement for ~20 years, including a 2010 abuse-and-neglect petition.
After preliminary proceedings, the five children were removed in April 2018; four were placed with the paternal grandmother and one in a shelter.
At disposition (Aug. 15, 2018; written order Nov. 1, 2018) the circuit court terminated the parents’ rights to the three youngest children (Z.A., S.A., J.A.-2).
The court verbally declined to terminate rights as to the two older teens (J.A.-1 and A.A.)—apparently because they (being 14+) objected—but made no best‑interests analysis and no written dispositional order for A.A.
This appeal: Supreme Court affirms termination as to the three youngest, but vacates the circuit court’s verbal ruling regarding A.A. and remands for proper dispositional findings and order.

Issues

Issue	Parents' Argument	DHHR / GAL Argument	Held
Whether termination of parental rights to Z.A., S.A., and J.A.-2 was supported by evidence of abuse/neglect	Termination not supported: home cleaned, truancy could be fixed (truancy petition), economic limitations, parents can improve; improvement period required	Long history (~20 years) of neglect despite services; severe educational neglect and hygiene problems; children need permanency	Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence of physical and educational neglect; no reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected; termination warranted under W.Va. Code § 49-4-604(b)(6)
Whether a post‑adjudicatory improvement period should have been granted	Parents: they complied and could improve if given period	DHHR/GAL: parents failed to accept responsibility, repeated relapse after services, improvement period would be futile	Denial upheld: parents did not show likelihood to fully participate or acknowledge problems; circuit court did not abuse discretion
Effect of a child (age 14+) expressing a wish not to terminate parental rights	Parents/GAL: because teenagers (14+) objected, court should leave parental rights intact as local practice	DHHR: wishes must be considered but are not dispositive; court must still assess best interests	Court clarifies: wishes of a child 14+ must be given consideration, but are only one factor; court must base disposition on the child’s best interests (may still terminate or impose lesser remedies)
Whether leaving A.A.’s parental‑rights status unresolved was procedural error requiring vacatur/remand	Parents/GAL: (implicitly) relying on child’s wishes and local practice	DHHR: argued jurisdictional concerns but failed to show a written dispositional order existed	Vacated and remanded as to A.A.: circuit court failed to perform/record a best‑interests analysis and did not enter a required dispositional order; substantial procedural requirements were disregarded

Key Cases Cited

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (bench‑trial findings of fact reviewed for clear error)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (restates standard of review for abuse and neglect bench findings)
In re Katie S., 198 W.Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (1996) (children’s health and welfare are primary goal over parental rights)
In re Timber M., 231 W.Va. 44, 743 S.E.2d 352 (2013) (Supreme Court may sua sponte act to protect child’s placement; vacate/remand for proper dispositional findings)
In re Edward B., 210 W.Va. 621, 558 S.E.2d 620 (2001) (vacatur/remand when procedural rules for disposition are substantially disregarded)
In re Jessica G., 226 W.Va. 17, 697 S.E.2d 53 (2010) (courts must give meaningful consideration to wishes of children and explain when not followed)
In re Ashton M., 228 W.Va. 584, 723 S.E.2d 409 (2012) (requirement to consider teenager’s wishes as part of disposition; clarify scope of consideration)