In re R.W., 20-0877

Background

Child R.W. was placed in maternal grandmother’s guardianship in 2013 and raised by her; father C.H. had little to no contact since then.
DHHR filed an initial abuse/neglect petition in 2018 (related sibling matter) and amended the petition in 2019 naming petitioner, alleging long-term absence, drug abuse, and incarceration.
Petitioner stipulated to abuse/neglect in Aug. 2019 and was granted a post-adjudicatory improvement period.
A neuropsychological evaluation (May 2020) found substantial neurocognitive limitations, poor insight and decision‑making, severe impairment on complex tasks, and likely maximum medical improvement.
Guardian and DHHR recommended termination; guardian reported the child was thriving with the grandmother and did not want regular contact with petitioner.
Circuit court terminated petitioner’s parental rights in Sept. 2020 for lack of reasonable likelihood of correction; petitioner appealed claiming insufficient services and failure to consider long‑term assistance.

Issues

Issue	Father’s Argument	DHHR / Court’s Argument	Held
1. Whether DHHR failed to provide reasonable reunification services	DHHR did not provide meaningful services or concrete goals during the improvement period	DHHR arranged appropriate steps (neuropsych eval) and tailored services were impossible before evaluation; post‑evaluation no suitable services existed	DHHR satisfied reasonable‑efforts requirement; no relief granted
2. Whether the court erred by terminating without a definitive parental‑fitness opinion or trying long‑term intensive assistance for cognitive impairment	Needed a specific evaluator opinion that petitioner could or could not parent with long‑term assistance; additional services might have helped	Evaluation and testimony showed severe, permanent deficits and lack of insight; long‑term intensive services would not remedy deficits timely for child’s permanency	Court correctly found evaluator’s findings sufficient and that further long‑term services were unwarranted
3. Whether termination was too restrictive; should a less‑restrictive disposition be used	Petitioner sought continued opportunity/lesser sanctions rather than termination	Evidence showed longstanding absence, drug abuse, criminal history, and no demonstrated progress or ability to parent	Termination appropriate where no reasonable likelihood conditions can be corrected
4. Challenge to alleged defects in the DHHR case plan	Case plan lacked specific goals/services tailored to petitioner	Petitioner did not timely object in the record; DHHR explained limitations and sequencing of services around the evaluation	Issue waived on appeal; court did not err on that basis

Key Cases Cited

In re Tiffany Marie S., 196 W. Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (standard of review for circuit court findings in abuse and neglect cases)
In re Billy Joe M., 206 W. Va. 1, 521 S.E.2d 173 (1999) (parental intellectual incapacity cases require thorough effort to determine whether intensive long‑term assistance can enable parenting)
In re Maranda T., 223 W. Va. 512, 678 S.E.2d 18 (2009) (court must quickly determine whether parents can function with long‑term assistance to effectuate permanency)
In re R.J.M., 164 W. Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (1980) (termination may be used without 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) (reiterating termination standard under West Virginia Code § 49‑4‑604)