In Re: J.G.-1, J.G.-2 and K.G., 17-0608

DHHR filed abuse and neglect petitions in Sept 2016 alleging petitioner father (J.G.-3) had no relationship with or protection for his children and had been incarcerated; mother accused petitioner of longstanding, severe domestic violence including incidents witnessed by the children.
Petitioner transported from jail to the Nov 2016 adjudicatory hearing; he admitted three domestic violence convictions, that some incidents occurred in front of the children, and stipulated to the abuse adjudication.
The circuit court denied a pre-dispositional improvement period and scheduled disposition. Petitioner remained incarcerated at disposition and sought a post-dispositional improvement period to begin upon his release.
At the Feb 2017 dispositional hearing the court found petitioner remained incarcerated, there was no reasonable likelihood he could correct conditions of abuse, and termination of parental rights was necessary for the children’s welfare.
The court terminated petitioner’s parental rights on June 7, 2017; mother later successfully completed an improvement period and regained custody. The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Petitioner)	Defendant's Argument (DHHR/Court)	Held
Whether the circuit court erred by denying a post-dispositional improvement period without finding petitioner’s release date or post-release employment plans	Court should have made findings about his anticipated release and employment so an improvement period could begin upon his release	Petitioner was incarcerated and could not begin an improvement period at disposition; he failed to show likelihood of full participation	Denial affirmed — court didn’t err; petitioner could not start participation at disposition and failed to show he was likely to fully participate
Whether termination was warranted given findings of abuse and lack of reasonable likelihood of correction	Petitioner sought opportunity to remedy conditions after release	DHHR/court relied on multiple domestic violence convictions, admissions of violence in front of children, and lack of prospects for correction	Termination affirmed — statute and case law permit termination when no reasonable likelihood conditions can be corrected

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (W.Va. 1996) (standard of review for circuit court factual findings in abuse and neglect cases)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (W.Va. 2011) (restating standard of review)
In re: M.M., 236 W.Va. 108, 778 S.E.2d 338 (W.Va. 2015) (circuit court has discretion to grant or deny improvement periods)
In re Katie S., 198 W.Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (W.Va. 1996) (discretion to grant improvement periods and use of termination absent less-restrictive alternatives when no reasonable likelihood of correction)
In re: Charity H., 215 W.Va. 208, 599 S.E.2d 631 (W.Va. 2004) (parent’s entitlement to improvement period conditioned on clear and convincing evidence of likelihood to fully participate)
In re Emily, 208 W.Va. 325, 540 S.E.2d 542 (W.Va. 2000) (an improvement period must commence no later than the dispositional hearing granting it)