In Re: J.K., C.K. and N.K.
17-0542
| W. Va. | Nov 22, 2017Background
- DHHR filed abuse-and-neglect petitions (July 2016) after three children reported witnessing the father (R.K.) commit domestic violence against their mothers; multiple domestic violence protective orders existed between the parents.
- Allegations included physical assaults witnessed by the children and the father’s homelessness and substance-abuse issues.
- Circuit court adjudicated the matter and granted R.K. a post-adjudicatory improvement period requiring parenting/adult-life-skills classes, random drug screens, psychological and substance-abuse evaluations, and domestic-violence counseling.
- DHHR/CPS later reported R.K. did not attend any parenting/adult-life-skills classes and missed multiple drug screens; psychological evaluation remained incomplete.
- At disposition (May 16, 2017) the court found R.K. failed to substantially comply, denied a post-dispositional improvement period or extension, and terminated R.K.’s parental rights to J.K., C.K., and N.K.
- R.K. appealed, arguing he had complied with the improvement period and was entitled to an extension or post-dispositional improvement period; the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (R.K.) | Defendant's Argument (DHHR/CPS/Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.K. substantially complied with the post-adjudicatory improvement period | R.K. testified he attended parenting and life-skills classes and complied with drug screens except when depression or work conflicts prevented attendance | CPS testified R.K. attended none of the classes, missed multiple drug screens, and failed to complete evaluations; court found noncompliance | Court held R.K. did not substantially comply and affirmed termination |
| Whether the court should have extended the improvement period | R.K. argued his (claimed) compliance warranted extension | DHHR argued court discretion favors termination where parent has not made necessary progress; extension allowed only with substantial compliance | Court held extension not warranted because R.K. failed to substantially comply |
| Whether a post‑dispositional improvement period should have been granted | R.K. requested additional time, asserting changed circumstances or readiness to comply | DHHR and court noted no evidence of changed circumstances and poor prior participation made future compliance unlikely | Court held no post‑dispositional improvement period should be granted |
Key Cases Cited
- In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (standard of review for bench findings in abuse-and-neglect proceedings)
- In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (appellate standard and review guidance)
- In re Kristin Y., 227 W.Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (2011) (court review of parental performance at end of improvement period)
- In re Lacey P., 189 W.Va. 580, 433 S.E.2d 518 (1993) (court discretion to terminate improvement period if parent not making necessary progress)