In Re: M.G. and E.G.
16-1191
| W. Va. | May 22, 2017Background
- DHHR filed abuse and neglect petition (Sept 2015) after investigations found homes in deplorable condition with multiple meth labs, trash, feces, and infestations.
- Parents stipulated to the petition; circuit court granted post-adjudicatory improvement periods and later a dispositional improvement period for mother.
- Mother initially engaged in services but later missed therapy appointments and had not visited the children for two months before the final dispositional hearing.
- Service provider testified mother regressed in parenting skills, failed to implement taught skills, and minimized responsibility for infestations; parents transported pests between residences and failed recommended precautions.
- Circuit court found current home unfit (cockroaches, bed bugs, no running water/furniture), allowed unsafe visitors (including sex offenders), denied mother’s request to extend her improvement period, and terminated parental rights as necessary for the children’s welfare.
- Mother appealed, arguing the court erred in denying an extension of her improvement period and in failing to consider less-restrictive dispositional alternatives; the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (K.G.) | Defendant's Argument (DHHR / Circuit Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Denial of extension of improvement period | K.G. contended she substantially complied and corrected conditions by securing a new residence free of prior issues. | Record shows continued insect infestations after move, missed services/visits, and failure to follow precautions—no substantial compliance. | Affirmed: court did not err in denying extension because mother failed to substantially comply. |
| 2. Failure to consider less-restrictive dispositional alternatives before terminating parental rights | K.G. argued the court should have terminated custodial rights only, allowing a later petition for custody. | Court found no reasonable likelihood conditions could be substantially corrected due to failure to follow plans and persistent conditions threatening children’s health/welfare. | Affirmed: termination appropriate where no reasonable likelihood of correction and termination necessary for children’s welfare. |
Key Cases Cited
- In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (standard of review for circuit-court findings in bench-tried abuse and neglect cases)
- In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (standards for appellate review)
- In re R.J.M., 164 W.Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (1980) (termination may be employed without intervening less-restrictive alternatives when no reasonable likelihood conditions can be corrected)
- In re Kristin Y., 227 W.Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (2011) (affirming statutory framework for termination when rehabilitative efforts fail)