In Re: K.M. and A.M.
16-0109
| W. Va. | Oct 11, 2016Background
- DHHR petitioned to remove two children after petitioner admitted shooting their mother; he pleaded guilty in separate criminal case to involuntary manslaughter and related offenses and received a seven-year sentence.
- Adjudicatory hearing held May 14, 2015; petitioner stipulated to the abuse/neglect allegations and sought a post-adjudicatory improvement period, with court ordering psychological and parental fitness evaluations and release of his juvenile records.
- Record shows ongoing scheduling adjustments through 2015; MDT and evaluative hearings delayed due to incomplete evaluations and petitioner’s failures to appear, yet hearings were completed in December 2015.
- Petitioner moved to disqualify the presiding judge after juvenile records were released; motion denied in June 2015.
- November 2015 dispositional hearing revealed the child therapist diagnosed PTSD in K.M. due to domestic violence and the shooting; court found serious emotional injury and no reasonable likelihood of correction.
- December 29, 2015, circuit court terminated parental rights, concluding termination was in the children’s best interests; this appeal followed challenging process, due process, records release, improvement period, and termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness and due process in proceedings | D.M. argues untimeliness violated due process | Court maintained proceedings timely and orderly | No reversible due process error; timing substantially complied |
| Judge disqualification motion | Judge biased due to prior juvenile proceedings | No bias; disqualification denied appropriately | No error in denial of disqualification |
| Release of juvenile records | Release violated statute and harmed defense | Court could order release for relevancy; limited scope | No reversible error; release limited to relevant review for improvement period |
| Improvement period denial | Remorse and cooperation warranted an improvement period | Evaluations showed resistance to authority and lack of remorse | No error in denying post-adjudicatory improvement period |
| Termination of parental rights | There was potential for correction; termination not required | There is no reasonable likelihood of correction and termination is in best interests | Termination affirmed; substantial evidence supported best-interests finding |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (clear-and-convincing standard; findings not set aside absent clear error)
- In re Edward B., 210 W.Va. 621, 558 S.E.2d 620 (2001) (priority of abuse/neglect proceedings; timely hearings)
- In re Emily G., 224 W.Va. 390, 686 S.E.2d 41 (2009) (transportation and scheduling considerations in abuse proceedings)
- In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (therapist not providing treatment to infant due to age; collateral considerations)