In Re: X.M. and Y.M., 17-0703

DHHR filed abuse-and-neglect petition (Aug 2016) alleging father J.M. committed domestic violence against the mother (pushing and choking), chronically abused alcohol, spent most income on alcohol, and verbally abused the children.
At a preliminary hearing, J.M. admitted on the record to alcoholism, domestic violence against multiple women (including the mother), and spending income on alcohol; admissions were treated as a stipulated adjudication.
Circuit court granted a six-month post-adjudicatory improvement period; DHHR offered services including inpatient treatment referrals.
J.M. failed to engage in services or community corrections, later pled guilty to strangulation and second-offense domestic battery and received consecutive prison sentences totaling 2–5 years.
At disposition (Mar 2017), the court denied J.M.’s motion for a post-dispositional improvement period, found no reasonable likelihood of correction in the near future, and terminated his parental rights (July 10, 2017). The mother was non‑abusing and children remained with her.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the circuit court erred by denying a less-restrictive alternative (post-dispositional improvement period) and terminating parental rights	J.M.: his alcohol addiction was the root cause; incarceration has produced sobriety and he should get an opportunity to reunify when released	DHHR: J.M. failed to utilize offered rehabilitative services, did not participate in community corrections, and was incarcerated for domestic violence, showing no reasonable prospect of correction	Court affirmed: denial of improvement period and termination proper because J.M. did not respond to or follow through with rehabilitative efforts and there was no reasonable likelihood of substantial correction in the near future
Whether termination satisfied statutory standard that it was necessary for the children’s welfare	J.M.: continued relationship with now-sober father would benefit children	Guardian/DHHR: termination necessary for children’s welfare given ongoing domestic violence, abuse, and failure to remediate	Court affirmed: evidence supported finding termination was necessary for the children’s welfare

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 bench-tried abuse/neglect cases)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (W. Va. 2011) (reciting standard of review and appellate deference to circuit court findings)
In re R.J.M., 164 W.Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (W. Va. 1980) (termination may be used without less restrictive alternatives when no reasonable likelihood of correction exists)
In re Kristin Y., 227 W.Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (W. Va. 2011) (statutory framework for termination and rehabilitative efforts requirement)