In Re: P.F., C.F.-1, L.F., and J.F.
17-0474
| W. Va. | Oct 23, 2017Background
- DHHR filed abuse and neglect petitions (June–July 2016) alleging C.F.-2 lacked working utilities, food, faced eviction, locked the refrigerator, and had substance-abuse history; children reported parental drug use.
- Petitioner (father C.F.-2) waived preliminary hearing, stipulated to inadequate shelter and drug abuse, and received a post-adjudicatory improvement period.
- Over the improvement period father obtained housing and employment but missed visits, parenting/adult-life-skills classes, failed consistent drug screens, and had positive methamphetamine tests in Dec 2016, Jan 2017, and Feb 2017.
- The circuit court terminated the post-adjudicatory improvement period for noncompliance, allowed limited visits until disposition, and the DHHR moved to terminate parental rights.
- At dispositional hearing father sought a post-dispositional improvement period but admitted to continued methamphetamine use; the court denied the request, found no reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected, and terminated parental rights (April 10, 2017).
- Children were placed with the paternal uncle with a goal of adoption; both parents’ rights were terminated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Termination of post-adjudicatory improvement period | Father: substantial compliance (housing, employment) warranted continuation | State/Court: father failed other requirements (visits, classes, drug screens; positive tests) | Court affirmed termination for failure to fully participate under W. Va. Code §49-4-610(7) |
| Denial of post-dispositional improvement period | Father: would comply if granted another improvement period | State/Court: father did not prove by clear and convincing evidence likelihood of full participation; no changed circumstances | Court affirmed denial—father failed to show likelihood to comply as required by §49-4-610(3)(B) |
| Termination of parental rights | Father: court should consider less-restrictive alternatives | State/Court: no reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected; termination necessary for children’s welfare | Court affirmed termination under §49-4-604(b)(6)/(c)(3) — no reasonable likelihood of correction and termination necessary for welfare |
| Best-interest determination | Father: (implicit) reunification possible if allowed more time | Guardian/DHHR: children’s welfare requires permanency; father’s noncompliance and drug use weigh against reunification | Court found termination consistent with children’s best interests and approved placement with paternal uncle |
Key Cases Cited
- In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (W.Va. 1996) (standard of review for circuit-court fact findings in abuse/neglect cases)
- In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (W.Va. 2011) (reviews abuse-and-neglect appellate standard of review)
- In re M.M., 236 W.Va. 108, 778 S.E.2d 338 (W.Va. 2015) (circuit court discretion to grant or deny improvement periods)
- In re R.J.M., 164 W.Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (W.Va. 1980) (termination may be used without intervening less-restrictive alternatives when no likelihood of correction)
- In re Kristin Y., 227 W.Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (W.Va. 2011) (statutory framework for termination when no reasonable likelihood conditions can be corrected)