In Re: J.J.
17-0523
W. Va.Nov 22, 2017Background
- DHHR filed abuse-and-neglect petition after an infant exhibited withdrawal symptoms at birth from the mother’s cocaine and buprenorphine use; parents were essentially homeless during pregnancy.
- Father (J.S.) was present at birth but did not visit or provide care while the child remained hospitalized for five additional days; nurses provided basic care.
- Father was later arrested and found with a bag that tested positive for cocaine; he was incarcerated from February 10 to March 29, 2017.
- DHHR attempted to contact parents for services and visitation; father did not meaningfully engage or contact DHHR after the child entered custody.
- At dispositional hearing father, through counsel, sought an improvement period but offered no corroborating evidence of housing, employment, or services; circuit court denied an improvement period and terminated parental and custodial rights.
- Father appealed, arguing (1) improper adjudication as an abusing parent and (2) insufficient factual basis/time to remedy after release; the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (DHHR / Guardian) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether father was properly adjudicated an abusing parent | Father: his failure to visit, lack of housing, and knowledge of mother’s prenatal care do not constitute abuse; arrests for nonviolent offenses unrelated to parenting | DHHR/Guardian: child born with drugs; father knew of mother’s drug use and failed to stop it or protect the child; father found with cocaine | Adjudication affirmed: child’s in-utero drug exposure and father’s knowledge/failure to act supports abuse finding (cites precedent that drugs in newborn = abuse evidence) |
| Whether termination of parental rights was supported by findings | Father: factual findings insufficient; inadequate time after incarceration to begin services | DHHR/Guardian: father had substance issues, failed to contact DHHR or pursue services, failed to visit child; no evidence father complied with case plan | Termination affirmed: no reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected; termination in child’s best interest; statutory criteria met |
| Whether an improvement period should have been granted | Father: requested post-adjudicatory improvement period and was working to secure housing, job, transportation, phone | DHHR/Guardian: father offered only proffer through counsel with no supporting evidence; DHHR had made efforts but father did not engage | Denied: circuit court reasonably found father would not comply with improvement period and lacked follow-through; reversal not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.L.C.M., 239 W.Va. 382, 801 S.E.2d 260 (W. Va. 2017) (presence of illegal drugs in newborn constitutes sufficient evidence of abuse/neglect)
- In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (W. Va. 2011) (standard of review for circuit court findings in abuse-and-neglect cases)
- 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 reasonable likelihood conditions can be corrected)
- In re Kristin Y., 227 W.Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (W. Va. 2011) (reaffirms standard for termination under statutory framework)
- In re Katie S., 198 W.Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (W. Va. 1996) (parental interest in visitation while child is in custody is significant to prospects for improvement)