In re S.R., J.M., and T.H., 21-0024

Background

June 2020: DHHR filed abuse-and-neglect petition after petitioner was stopped for DUI with two young children in the vehicle and heroin found; petitioner had prior similar arrest and documented long history of substance abuse.
Children were placed with maternal grandparents (T.H. later aged out); S.R. and J.M. remained in kin placement; fathers retained rights (father of S.R./J.M. on improvement period).
Petitioner was largely nonresponsive: did not appear at hearings (was represented), did not maintain contact with DHHR after August 2020, did not participate in offered services, and did not visit the children after removal.
Circuit court adjudicated petitioner an abusing parent and, at disposition, found no reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected and that termination was necessary for the children’s welfare; it terminated petitioner’s parental, custodial, and guardianship rights on December 14, 2020.
Petitioner appealed, arguing the court erred by not giving additional time to participate in an improvement period; the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court erred by terminating rights without granting additional time for a post-adjudicatory improvement period	A.H.: long-term addiction makes four months insufficient; she should have additional time to attempt rehabilitation	DHHR/Ct: petitioner never filed a written motion for an improvement period, counsel made no request below, and petitioner presented no evidence she would likely fully participate	Affirmed — petitioner did not request an improvement period and offered no proof she would comply; court properly denied relief
Whether statutory standard for termination (no reasonable likelihood of correction; necessary for welfare) was met	A.H.: (implicitly) argued relationship with children justified more time	DHHR/Ct: petitioner failed to follow services, failed contact and visitation, demonstrating inadequate capacity to remedy problems	Affirmed — record supports finding that petitioner would not avail herself of services and conditions would not be corrected
Whether less-restrictive alternatives (e.g., sua sponte improvement period) were required	A.H.: placement with family warranted granting more time	DHHR/Ct: courts have discretion and need not exhaust speculative possibilities, especially given young children’s need for permanence	Affirmed — termination appropriate; courts need not delay permanency when parent is noncompliant and children are of tender years

Key Cases Cited

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W. Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (bench-trial factual-findings standard and appellate review of findings)
In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (standards for terminating parental rights and permanency timing)
In re M.M., 236 W. Va. 108, 778 S.E.2d 338 (2015) (court discretion to grant improvement periods)
In re Tonjia M., 212 W. Va. 443, 573 S.E.2d 354 (2002) (discretion to deny improvement period when improvement unlikely)
Shaffer v. Acme Limestone Co., Inc., 206 W. Va. 333, 524 S.E.2d 688 (1999) (appellate review generally will not consider issues raised first on appeal)
Noble v. W. Va. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles, 223 W. Va. 818, 679 S.E.2d 650 (2009) (application of the rule against raising nonjurisdictional issues for the first time on appeal)
In re Katie S., 198 W. Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (1996) (parental visitation while children are out of custody is a key indicator of potential for improvement)
In re R.J.M., 164 W. Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (1980) (courts need not pursue speculative parental improvement when child’s welfare is threatened, especially for children under three)
In re Kristin Y., 227 W. Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (2011) (termination may be used without less-restrictive alternatives when no reasonable likelihood of correction)
State v. Michael M., 202 W. Va. 350, 504 S.E.2d 177 (1998) (priority for adoptive placement and considerations for permanent out-of-home placement)
James M. v. Maynard, 185 W. Va. 648, 408 S.E.2d 400 (1991) (guardian ad litem role continues until child is placed in a permanent home)