In Re: M.C., 16-0479

DHHR filed abuse-and-neglect petition (May 2015) alleging exposure of ten-year-old M.C. to parental drug use, domestic violence, and excessive truancy.
At adjudication (July 2015) father (T.C.) admitted manufacturing/smoking meth, DUI with child in car, allowing child to drive, and some domestic violence; court adjudicated him an abusing parent and granted a post-adjudicatory improvement period with substance‑abuse, parenting, evaluations, drug screens, and court attendance requirements.
Father missed drug screens and in November 2015 was incarcerated on an unrelated sentence (1–3 years), with parole eligibility around November 2016.
Father remained incarcerated at the February 2016 dispositional hearing; he did not appear in person, was represented by counsel, had listed potential witnesses but presented no evidence; counsel voiced opposition but conceded father could not complete the improvement plan while incarcerated.
The circuit court found no reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected in the near future (noting failure to complete the plan and length of incarceration) and terminated father’s parental rights. This appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether father was denied a meaningful opportunity at the dispositional hearing to testify or call witnesses	Father contends he was prevented from testifying or presenting witnesses before termination	DHHR and guardian point to the record: father did not seek to present witnesses at the hearing and counsel acknowledged incarceration made completion unlikely	Court held father was not denied the opportunity; he and counsel declined to present evidence and therefore no error
Whether court erred by terminating parental rights without imposing less‑restrictive alternatives	Father argues the court should have considered less‑restrictive dispositions	DHHR argues father failed his improvement plan, admitted inability to complete services due to incarceration, and the length of incarceration justified termination without lesser alternatives	Court held termination was proper: no reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected in the near future and less‑restrictive alternatives were not required

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (W.Va. 1996) (standard of review for circuit court factual findings)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (W.Va. 2011) (incarceration can support termination; deference to circuit court findings)
In re Emily, 208 W.Va. 325, 540 S.E.2d 542 (W.Va. 2000) (circuit court weighs witness credibility in abuse/neglect cases)
Michael D.C. v. Wanda L.C., 201 W.Va. 381, 497 S.E.2d 531 (W.Va. 1997) (reviewing court cannot reassess witness credibility)
In re Katie S., 198 W.Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (W.Va. 1996) (termination may be used without intervening less‑restrictive alternatives when no reasonable likelihood conditions can be corrected)