In Re: T.T. and B.P., 16-1119

DHHR filed an abuse-and-neglect petition after infant T.T. (b. Oct. 2014) presented with healing fractures to the 9th, 10th, and possibly 11th ribs; medical expert found injuries suspicious for non-accidental trauma.
Petitioner (father) initially could not explain injuries, later admitted a physical altercation with the child’s mother during which he injured T.T.; he also acknowledged unsafe handling (e.g., throwing infant in air).
Petitioner underwent a psychological evaluation diagnosing mild intellectual disability, antisocial personality disorder, history of aggression/violence, and concluded he was unfit and likely dangerous to children; prognosis for improvement was deemed "virtually non-existent."
A second psychologist reviewed the record and suggested remediation steps (social skills training, no aggression) that, if followed, might allow limited interaction in 6–12 months; petitioner failed to comply with required services and exhibited continued aggressive incidents and poor visitation attendance.
The circuit court terminated petitioner’s parental, custodial, and guardianship rights to T.T. and B.P.; petitioner appealed, arguing (1) DHHR should have assessed whether he could parent with intensive, long‑term assistance, and (2) the court failed to consider less‑restrictive dispositions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DHHR was required to determine if petitioner could parent with intensive, long‑term assistance	Father: court erred by not forcing DHHR to evaluate long‑term supports to allow him to parent	DHHR/Ct: thorough psychological evaluation was obtained early; experts concluded petitioner was unfit and dangerous, so further long‑term services were not appropriate	Court: No error — the psychological evaluation functioned as the required determination; impediments were essentially insurmountable and prognosis poor
Whether a less‑restrictive dispositional alternative should have been used instead of termination	Father: termination was too drastic; court should have tried less‑restrictive options	DHHR/Ct: petitioner failed to follow services; statutory standard permits termination when there is no reasonable likelihood conditions can be corrected	Court: No error — sufficient evidence petitioner would not correct conditions; statutory grounds for termination satisfied

In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (standard of review for circuit court findings in abuse/neglect bench trials)
In re Billy Joe M., 206 W.Va. 1, 521 S.E.2d 173 (1999) (requirement to evaluate whether parents with intellectual incapacity can parent with long‑term assistance)
In re Maranda T., 223 W.Va. 512, 678 S.E.2d 18 (2009) (procedural guidance on termination and permanency matters)
In re R.J.M., 164 W.Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (1980) (termination may be ordered without intervening 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) (affirming statutory framework for termination when corrective prospects are remote)
State v. Michael M., 202 W.Va. 350, 504 S.E.2d 177 (1998) (priority for securing adoptive home and permanency considerations)
James M. v. Maynard, 185 W.Va. 648, 408 S.E.2d 400 (1991) (guardian ad litem duties continue until child placed in permanent home)