In Re Kristin Y.
227 W. Va. 558
| W. Va. | 2011Background
- Anna Y. and Ricky Y. are parents of four children (Kristin, Arther, Eddy, Scharlotte).
- Emergency custody of the children was granted to DHHR in April 2008 due to imminent danger and mother’s hospitalization.
- Petitions in 2008–2009 alleged abuse/neglect and sexual abuse by the father; educational neglect and other parental deficiencies were included.
- Adjudication in June 2008 found the children abused or neglected; both parents entered improvement periods.
- In January 2010 the circuit court terminated the father's parental rights but did not terminate Anna Y.'s rights, opting for a dispositional plan under §49-6-5(a)(5).
- DHHR appealed the November 16, 2010 dispositional order, and this Court reversed, terminating Anna Y.'s parental rights and directing permanent placement of the children.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is no reasonable likelihood conditions can be corrected | DHHR: no reasonable likelihood exists; Anna Y. cannot complete or benefit from continued services. | Anna Y.: some improvement remains possible and contact may be appropriate. | No reasonable likelihood found; rights to be terminated. |
| Best interests of the children in termination vs. residual rights | DHHR: termination best for permanency and safety. | Mother and children may benefit from limited post-termination contact. | Best interests require permanent termination and permanent placement. |
| Appropriate disposal under §49-6-5(a)(5) vs termination under (a)(6) | Termination under (a)(6) is warranted given ongoing risk. | Dispositional alternative could preserve some parental connection. | Court erred in not terminating parental rights; reverse and terminate. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (1996) (clear standards for review of abuse/neglect findings)
- In re R.J.M., 164 W.Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (1980) (1980) (no reasonable likelihood standard applied; need for permanency)
- In re Katie S., 198 W.Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (1996) (1996) (best interests guide; least restrictive means")
- Kiger v. Hancock, 153 W.Va. 404, 168 S.E.2d 798 (1969) (1969) (parental rights generally recognized absent unfitness)
- In re Isaiah A., W.Va. , S.E.2d (2010) (2010) (permanency priority for children)
- In re Jonathan G., 198 W.Va. 716, 482 S.E.2d 893 (1996) (1996) (permanency and parental rights considerations)
- State ex rel. Amy M. v. Kaufman, 196 W.Va. 251, 470 S.E.2d 205 (1996) (1996) (parental rights disposed with focus on child’s welfare)