In Re: J.L., T.Y., and G.B.
17-0570
| W. Va. | Nov 22, 2017Background
- DHHR filed abuse-and-neglect proceedings beginning June 2013 after findings that mother A.L. had made false abuse reports against J.L.’s father and alienated J.L., who suffered severe anxiety; J.L. was placed with his father.
- A.L. stipulated to emotional neglect (alienation) regarding J.L.; the court granted a post-adjudicatory improvement period and ordered therapy, parenting classes, and a psychological (parental fitness) evaluation.
- In 2016 the DHHR removed T.Y. and G.B. from A.L.’s custody after an unannounced home visit documented an unsanitary home, G.B.’s father residing there contrary to A.L.’s claims, missed preschool/school and missed services; A.L. stipulated to several allegations at adjudication.
- The parental fitness evaluation recommended returning the children to A.L.; however, the evaluator’s procurement and timing raised credibility issues at disposition, and the court found the report inconsistent with other evidence.
- Evidence at disposition showed A.L. moved counties for work, missed supervised visits and services, gave inconsistent statements about residence/relationships/employment, and previously made repeated false allegations against J.L.’s father; T.Y.’s therapist advised against eliciting T.Y.’s testimony.
- The circuit court found no reasonable likelihood A.L. could correct conditions of abuse/neglect and terminated A.L.’s parental rights to J.L., T.Y., and G.B.; J.L. remains with his father, T.Y. is in foster care (plan reunify with father or adoption), and G.B. was returned to his father.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (A.L.) | Defendant's Argument (DHHR/Guardian/Fathers) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by not allowing 13‑year‑old T.Y. to express her wishes | T.Y. should have been allowed to state her preference (citing Jessica G.) | T.Y. was 13 (statute triggers at 14) and therapist advised against testimony as harmful | Court upheld denial: therapist recommended against, no evidence T.Y. wanted to oppose termination or had strong bond |
| Credibility and bias of DHHR/guardian and factual findings | Court relied on biased, unfair treatment and mischaracterized facts (e.g., payment to psychologist) | Trial court evaluated credibility, found DHHR/guardian evidence credible and psychologist’s report unreliable | Court deferred to factfinder and affirmed credibility determinations |
| Whether statutory factors in W.Va. Code §49‑4‑604(b)(7) were required before termination | A.L. argued none of those factors existed so termination inappropriate | Those factors merely allow DHHR to cease reasonable efforts; they are not prerequisites to termination | Court held statute does not bar termination and DHHR did make reasonable efforts |
| Whether less‑restrictive alternatives were available | A.L. claimed alternatives existed and psychologist recommended reunification | Evidence showed ongoing deceit, missed services/visits, unstable housing and no reasonable likelihood of correction | Court found no reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected and termination was necessary for children’s welfare |
Key Cases Cited
- In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223 (1996) (standard of review for bench findings in abuse/neglect cases)
- In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89 (2011) (review standard reaffirmation for abuse/neglect bench trials)
- Interest of Jessica G., 226 W.Va. 17 (2010) (child of "age of discretion"—court must explain when not considered)
- Michael D.C. v. Wanda L.C., 201 W.Va. 381 (1997) (appellate courts defer to trial court on witness credibility)
- In re Katie S., 198 W.Va. 79 (1996) (termination may be used without less‑restrictive alternatives when no reasonable likelihood of correction)