In Re: T.S.
17-0514
| W. Va. | Nov 22, 2017Background
- DHHR filed an abuse and neglect petition in Sept. 2015; petitioner (father W.S.) was incarcerated before the child’s birth and pled guilty to Delivery of a Schedule II Narcotic (sentence 1–15 years).
- After paternity delays, the circuit court adjudicated petitioner an abusing parent based on abandonment; petitioner withdrew a prior stipulation over parole concerns.
- At dispositional hearing (May 2017) court noted petitioner had been incarcerated for the child’s entire life, had little bond with the child, no support or caretaking, and had not engaged in efforts to improve parenting capacity.
- Court also relied on petitioner’s history: drug abuse, limited work history, suspended license for unpaid fines, prior domestic battery, and failure to pay child support.
- Circuit court denied a post-adjudicatory improvement period and terminated petitioner’s parental, custodial, and guardianship rights; child placed with a relative with permanency plan of adoption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court erred by considering petitioner’s incarceration in deciding to terminate parental rights | Father: court improperly relied on incarceration since he lacked knowledge of the child at time of incarceration and could not provide support while imprisoned | DHHR/court: incarceration may be considered along with other factors (nature/length of confinement, parental history, child’s need for permanency) | Court: No error; incarceration properly considered as one factor among others |
| Whether there was a reasonable likelihood conditions of abuse/neglect could be corrected | Father: release from incarceration would correct conditions | DHHR/court: incarceration wasn’t sole issue; father denied paternity, had no bond, made no efforts to support or remedy problems | Court: No reasonable likelihood; termination necessary for child’s welfare |
| Whether denial of post-adjudicatory improvement period was improper | Father: implied—he needed time after release to demonstrate fitness | DHHR/court: father failed to take steps or acknowledge problems, so improvement period inappropriate | Court: Denial affirmed due to lack of effort and failure to acknowledge wrongdoing |
| Whether termination violated child’s need for stability and permanency | Father: (implicit) his potential future availability could serve child | DHHR/court: child had been in relative care since birth; proceedings already delayed, requiring permanency | Court: Termination was necessary to secure child’s permanency and welfare |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (W. Va. 2011) (incarceration may be considered among factors for terminating parental rights)
- 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 non-jury child abuse/neglect cases)
- In re Timber M., 231 W.Va. 44, 743 S.E.2d 352 (W. Va. 2013) (parent must acknowledge problem to make it treatable)
- In re Charity H., 215 W.Va. 208, 599 S.E.2d 631 (W. Va. 2004) (failure to acknowledge abuse/neglect undermines remedial efforts)