In Re: T.M.
16-0862
| W. Va. | Jun 9, 2017Background
- DHHR filed an abuse-and-neglect petition (Mar. 2016) naming the mother for substance abuse and petitioner (father J.M.) for abandonment due to prolonged incarceration. Petition noted father was in North Central Regional Jail.
- At the May 2016 adjudicatory hearing father remained incarcerated; witnesses testified he could not assume care, custody, or control of the child.
- At the June 2016 dispositional hearing father remained incarcerated; CPS testified his projected discharge was March 2018 but that he would be parole-eligible in Aug. 2016 with no guarantee of release.
- CPS and the court found the child’s best interests required permanency through adoption by relatives/foster parents; the mother previously lost parental rights.
- The circuit court concluded no less-restrictive alternative (e.g., guardianship) would meet the child’s best interests and terminated father's parental rights (order entered Aug. 19, 2016).
- Father appealed, arguing termination based on incarceration was improper because a less-restrictive alternative was available; the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether incarceration alone can justify termination of parental rights | Father: Termination improper where a less-restrictive alternative (legal guardianship) was available | DHHR/Court: Incarceration may justify termination when child’s need for permanency and lack of near-term correction support it | Held: Incarceration can justify termination where no reasonable likelihood conditions can be corrected in the near future and termination is in child's best interests |
| Whether a less-restrictive alternative (guardianship) should have been used | Father: Guardianship would preserve parental rights while providing care | CPS/guardian: Guardianship/adoption not feasible given father’s prolonged incarceration and child’s need for permanency | Held: Court found no dispositional alternative short of termination could meet the child’s best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89 (W. Va. 2011) (incarceration may support termination; courts must consider nature/length of confinement and child’s need for permanency)
- In re Tiffany Marie S., 196 W. Va. 223 (W. Va. 1996) (standard of review for circuit court findings in abuse-and-neglect cases)
- In re Katie S., 198 W. Va. 79 (W. Va. 1996) (termination may be used without intervening less-restrictive alternatives when no reasonable likelihood conditions can be corrected)