In Re: P.A., D.A., and E.A.
17-0715 & 17-0735
| W. Va. | Dec 1, 2017Background
- DHHR filed abuse and neglect petitions (Dec 2016) against adoptive parents K.A. and I.A. after reports of physical abuse, frequent yelling, and neighborhood and CPS referrals about corporal punishment of P.A., D.A., and E.A.
- Children reported being whipped and fearful of returning home; physical bruising and evidence were corroborated by CPS and a neighbor’s statements about use of a painted paint‑stirrer.
- Parents had prior foster/adoptive training and prior referrals for similar conduct; psychological evaluations (Jan 2017) concluded both parents had a poor prognosis and were unlikely to change with services.
- Parents eventually admitted to excessive corporal discipline and pled guilty to domestic battery, admitting they struck and injured the children.
- Circuit court denied post‑adjudicatory and post‑dispositional improvement periods based on the evaluations and admissions, and terminated parental rights as there was no reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected and termination was necessary for the children’s welfare.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioners' Argument | DHHR/State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by denying post‑dispositional improvement periods | Petitioners argued they had begun counseling and made some improvements and therefore should receive improvement periods | DHHR relied on psychological evaluations and history showing parents were unlikely to benefit from services | Denial upheld: court properly exercised discretion and petitioners failed to show by clear and convincing evidence they would fully participate or improve |
| Whether termination of parental rights was erroneous | Petitioners argued termination was improper given some service participation and claimed best interests might favor reunification efforts | DHHR argued repeated serious physical abuse, prior referrals, guilty pleas, and expert opinions showed no reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected | Termination affirmed: statutory grounds met (no reasonable likelihood conditions could be substantially corrected and termination necessary for child 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 factual findings in abuse and neglect cases)
- In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (restating standard of review)
- In re: M.M., 236 W.Va. 108, 778 S.E.2d 338 (2015) (trial court discretion to grant or deny improvement periods)
- In re Katie S., 198 W.Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (1996) (court discretion to grant improvement periods under statutory requirements)
- In re: Charity H., 215 W.Va. 208, 599 S.E.2d 631 (2004) (parent must show by clear and convincing evidence likelihood of full participation in improvement period)