In Re: T.M., 16-0820

DHHR filed abuse and neglect petition (May 2015) after child was left unsupervised in a partially burned, debris-filled mobile home; father (J.M.) initially listed as non-offending.
Father was incarcerated in May 2015, released in June 2015, but did not contact DHHR or participate in ordered supervised visitation/drug screens; he was reincarcerated in October 2015.
DHHR amended the petition (Dec 2015) alleging father failed to provide food, clothing, supervision, housing, or financial support, placing the child at risk.
At adjudicatory hearing (Mar 2016) father was adjudicated an abusing parent; he requested but was denied a post-adjudicatory improvement period.
At dispositional hearing (May 2016) DHHR sought termination based on father’s failure to engage in services, lack of support, and incarceration; court found no reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected and terminated parental rights (Aug 15, 2016).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether termination was justified given father’s incarceration	Termination improper because it was based solely on incarceration	Incarceration alone did not form sole basis; other failures existed	Affirmed — termination proper where incarceration considered among other factors
Whether father’s failure to engage in services/support justified termination	Father claimed he couldn’t contact caseworker and was not allowed to see child after release	DHHR: father failed to contact DHHR, pay support, or follow reunification plan while free	Affirmed — failure to avail himself of services and support showed no likelihood of correction
Whether court erred in denying improvement period(s)	Father requested post-adjudicatory and post-dispositional improvement periods	DHHR argued father made no efforts while free and had long history of non-support/reincarceration	Affirmed — denial appropriate given lack of response to rehabilitative efforts
Whether termination was necessary for child’s welfare/permanency	Father argued termination premature given potential for future correction	DHHR & guardian emphasized child’s need for stability and permanency	Affirmed — termination necessary for child’s well-being and permanency

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (W. Va. 1996) (standard of review for circuit court findings in abuse and neglect cases)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (W. Va. 2011) (incarceration can be considered in termination analysis; factors to evaluate)
In re Katie S., 198 W.Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (W. Va. 1996) (termination may be used without less restrictive alternatives when no reasonable likelihood conditions can be corrected)