In re D.P. and G.P. and In re A.O., D.P., and G.P.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA
FILED
September 2021 Term November 9, 2021
_______________ released at 3:00 p.m.
EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK
SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
No. 20-0631 OF WEST VIRGINIA
_______________
IN RE D.P. AND G.P.
____________________________________________________________
AND
_______________
No. 20-0632
_______________
IN RE A.O., D.P., AND G.P.
____________________________________________________________
Appeals from the Circuit Court of Mercer County
The Honorable Mark E. Wills, Judge
Case Nos. 17-JA-124-MW, 17-JA-125-MW, 18-JA-186-MW
AFFIRMED
____________________________________________________________
Submitted: September 14, 2021
Filed: November 9, 2021
Ward Morgan, Esq. Patrick Morrisey, Esq.
Law Office of Ward Morgan Attorney General
Bluefield, West Virginia Mindy M. Parsley, Esq.
Counsel for Petitioner/Respondent T.P. Assistant Attorney General
S. L. Evans, Esq.
John G. Byrd, Esq. Assistant Attorney General
Public Defender Corporation Charleston, West Virginia
Princeton, West Virginia Counsel for Respondent West Virginia
Counsel for Petitioner/Respondent K.O. Department of Health and Human
Resources
Andrea Powell, Esq.
Law Office of Andrea Powell
Princeton, West Virginia
Guardian ad Litem for the Minor Children
JUSTICE WOOTON delivered the Opinion of the Court.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
1. “Although conclusions of law reached by a circuit court are subject
to de novo review, when an action, such as an abuse and neglect case, is tried upon the facts
without a jury, the circuit court shall make a determination based upon the evidence and
shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether such child is abused or
neglected. These findings shall not be set aside by a reviewing court unless clearly
erroneous. A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support the
finding, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed. However, a reviewing court may not
overturn a finding simply because it would have decided the case differently, and it must
affirm a finding if the circuit court’s account of the evidence is plausible in light of the
record viewed in its entirety.” Syl. Pt. 1, In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W. Va. 223,
470 S.E.2d 177 (1996).
2. “As a general rule, the least restrictive alternative regarding parental
rights to custody of a child under [West Virginia Code § 49-4-604 (2020)] will be
employed; however, courts are not required to exhaust every speculative possibility of
parental improvement before terminating parental rights where it appears that the welfare
of the child will be seriously threatened, and this is particularly applicable to children under
the age of three years who are more susceptible to illness, need consistent close interaction
with fully committed adults, and are likely to have their emotional and physical
i
development [delayed] by numerous placements.” Syl. Pt. 1, In re R.J.M., 164 W. Va. 496,
266 S.E.2d 114 (1980).
3. “Termination of parental rights, the most drastic remedy under the
statutory provision covering the disposition of neglected children, [West Virginia Code §
49-4-604 (2020)] may be employed without the use of intervening less restrictive
alternatives when it is found that there is no reasonable likelihood under [West Virginia
Code § 49-4-604(c)] that conditions of neglect or abuse can be substantially corrected.”
Syl. Pt. 2, In re R.J.M., 164 W. Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (1980).
ii
WOOTON, Justice:
In May 2017, the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources
(“DHHR”) removed the minor children A.O. and D.P. 1 from the home they shared with
their parents. The DHHR then filed an abuse and neglect petition against Petitioner Father
T.P. 2 and Petitioner Mother K.O. 3 (“Petitioner Father”, “Petitioner Mother”, collectively
“Petitioners”) alleging neglect due to inadequate supervision as to A.O. and D.P.; an
amended petition was filed in September 2018 to include G.P., who was born during the
pendency of these proceedings. Petitioners stipulated to having neglected the children, and
the circuit court granted them post-adjudicatory improvement periods. These improvement
periods continued well past the statutory time limits despite Petitioners’ minimal
improvement. At disposition, the circuit court found that, while Petitioners had started to
improve, their progress was insufficient to regain custody of their children. The circuit
court then terminated Petitioners’ parental rights.
On appeal, Petitioners argue the circuit court erred in terminating their
parental rights rather than imposing a less restrictive alternative, insofar as the circuit court
should have permitted them to retain custody of one or two of the children. The DHHR
1
Consistent with our long-standing practice in cases with sensitive facts, we use
initials where necessary to protect the identities of those involved in this case. See In re
K.H., 235 W. Va. 254, 773 S.E.2d 20 (2015).
2
Petitioner Father is the biological father of D.P. and G.P. A.O.’s biological father
is N.B., who is not a party to this appeal, but whose rights have also been terminated.
3
Petitioner Mother is the biological mother of all three children.
1
and the guardian ad litem (sometimes “guardian”) respond that Petitioners demonstrated
an overall lack of improvement in their lengthy improvement periods and the circuit court
correctly determined there was no reasonable likelihood the conditions of abuse or neglect
could be substantially corrected in the near future, necessitating the termination of their
parental rights. Because we find that the circuit court did not err in so finding, we affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May 15, 2017, Mercer County law enforcement was informed that an
unsupervised child had been found wandering beside a congested stretch of U.S. Route 52.
The child, A.O., was then three years old and suffered from severe autism. A tenant in a
nearby apartment complex retrieved A.O., and, before law enforcement could arrive,
Petitioner Mother picked the child up from that tenant’s apartment. A police officer arrived
shortly after and spoke with Petitioner Mother, who explained that she had fallen asleep
and awoken to find A.O. missing. She said this was the first time A.O. had gotten out of
the house and that Petitioner Father must have left the front door unlocked when he left for
work that morning. The officer advised Petitioner Mother to ensure the door was locked
moving forward and suggested that she rotate the orientation of the chain lock to prevent
the door from opening wide enough for a child to pass through. 4
4
The officer also noted that the home was unsanitary at the time of his visit, and
that A.O. appeared not to have been bathed in several days. Later the same day, a Child
Protective Services (“CPS”) worker observed the same conditions, and also noted there
2
Two days later, A.O., once again, was found wandering by the road
unsupervised. Law enforcement retrieved the child, contacted the DHHR, and returned to
Petitioners’ apartment. Upon their arrival, the officers found Petitioners asleep, entirely
unaware that A.O. had again left the home. At this time, the DHHR determined that
Petitioners were unable to adequately supervise the children and implemented an
emergency protection plan, thereby removing A.O. and D.P. from the home and
temporarily placing them with a relative. The DHHR filed an abuse and neglect petition
in the Circuit Court of Mercer County two days after the removal alleging neglect due to
lack of supervision. 5
At the adjudicatory hearing, Petitioners stipulated to the neglect allegation.
The circuit court accepted Petitioners’ stipulations and adjudged the children as neglected.
Petitioners then moved for post-adjudicatory improvement periods, and the circuit court
granted those motions.
The first review hearing on the improvement periods occurred on November
20, 2017. At this time, the DHHR informed the court that the parents were “actively
participating” in parenting and adult life skills services, and that they were “taking in the
was little to no food in the home. The CPS worker purchased baby formula for D.P. and
took Petitioner Mother to a local mission to get food.
5
The petition also included an allegation of abandonment against N.B., A.O.’s
biological father.
3
information” they were given in those classes. The circuit court continued the
improvement periods.
The next review hearing did not occur until nearly seven months later, on
June 18, 2018. At this hearing, the DHHR informed the court that Petitioners were no
longer complying with services, that they had housing stability issues, 6 and that their
attendance at supervised visits with the children was “sporadic at best.” Despite this turn
of events, the circuit court continued Petitioners’ improvement periods, but stated that they
would now be on “dispositional improvement periods.” 7
Before the next review hearing could take place, Petitioner Mother gave birth
to G.P. The DHHR removed G.P. and placed him in foster care. 8 The DHHR then
6
The transcript for this review hearing reveals that Petitioners were no longer
residing in an apartment, but in a camper with no electricity, and possibly without running
water.
7
We note that West Virginia Code § 49-4-610 (2015) sets out three types of
improvement periods: (1) pre-adjudicatory; (2) post-adjudicatory; and (3) post-
dispositional. By that statute’s clear language, a post-dispositional improvement period is
only available pursuant to disposition under West Virginia Code § 49-4-604 (2020). Id. §
49-4-610(3). No such disposition had occurred at this time in this matter. We, therefore,
assume that the circuit court simply meant to extend Petitioners’ post-adjudicatory
improvement periods. However, such extension is similarly unauthorized as Petitioners’
post-adjudicatory improvement periods had already lasted for ten months—from August
2017 to June 2018—which exceeds the nine-month time limit on post-adjudicatory
improvement periods. See id. § 49-4-610(2) (providing for a six-month post-adjudicatory
improvement period) and § 49-4-610(6) (allowing for a three-month extension to a post-
adjudicatory improvement period).
It is not entirely clear why G.P. was not placed in the same relative placement with
8
A.O. and D.P., but we can glean from the record and the parties’ briefs that there were
4
amended the abuse and neglect petition to add G.P. to these proceedings, again alleging
neglect resulting from inadequate supervision. Petitioners waived their preliminary
hearing and stipulated to this allegation at the joint adjudicatory/review hearing on
September 28, 2018. The court accepted Petitioners’ stipulations. At the same hearing,
the circuit court was informed that Petitioners still were not complying with the terms of
their improvement periods granted pursuant to the original adjudication involving A.O. and
D.P. Despite this, the circuit court again continued those improvement periods and granted
a post-adjudicatory improvement period pursuant to the new adjudication regarding G.P.
The next review hearing took place on December 10, 2018. The circuit court
was informed at this hearing that Petitioners were “fully compliant” with services. They
had met with service providers, obtained suitable housing in an apartment complex, and
attended regular visits with the children. In fact, they were doing so well the DHHR
increased the number of visits at this time. Further, Petitioner Father had obtained new
employment. Relying upon this information, the circuit court extended Petitioners’
improvement periods once again. Another review hearing in January 2019 was similarly
positive.
At a review hearing in April 2019, the circuit court heard testimony from a
CPS worker that Petitioners were not implementing the parenting skills they learned
concerns the maternal grandmother, who had physical custody of A.O. and D.P. at the time,
would not be able to care for a third child.
5
through the services provided. The court then determined that the parents had “started to
improve” but that their improvement had not been sufficient to regain custody of the
children; the court set the matter for disposition on August 19, 2019. 9
Disposition did not occur in August 2019, and the next hearing was a “review
of placement options” conducted on November 25, 2019. At this hearing, the court was
again informed that Petitioners were making only minimal progress in their improvement
periods, and the DHHR noted its concerns about Petitioner Mother’s ability to care for all
three children, stating that it did not “feel that the parents are capable of maintaining the
consistency that they need to have the children returned to their care.” Similarly, the
guardian informed the court that visits with the children had been “really chaotic.” After
considering these statements, the circuit court scheduled disposition for January 17, 2020.
9
At this point, we must pause to recognize a procedural irregularity in this matter.
The August 2019 hearing did not proceed as a dispositional hearing but was essentially
another review hearing. While the parties did not explain this in their briefs, upon
reviewing the hearing transcript, it appears that the parties and the circuit court were
uncomfortable proceeding to disposition because they were exploring the viability of
placing one of the children, specifically G.P., with Petitioners. The parties vaguely allude
to this in their briefs, and it appears that Petitioners predicate their arguments on this
development, arguing that they should have been permitted to retain the rights to at least
one of the children. At oral argument, counsel for Petitioner Mother and the DHHR
explained that there is allegedly an “informal policy” in Mercer County which may permit
parents to retain the rights to one or more of their children, even when there has been a
determination that they cannot care for the others. While this issue is not before us on
appeal, this scenario elicits grave concern as the parties fail to identify any authority in the
West Virginia Code or the precedent of this Court which would permit such a policy.
6
The dispositional hearing did not take place until nearly seven months later,
on June 29, 2020. At that hearing, the circuit court heard testimony from the DHHR worker
assigned to this case that “[t]he parents are unable to supervise and provide for all three
children together.” While much of that worker’s concern was focused on Petitioner
Mother’s inability to parent successfully without intervention, she also opined that
Petitioner Father was only “a little better.” She stated that both parents still needed regular
prompting to care for the children.
Michael Brown, a service provider, testified that he observed and supervised
several of Petitioners’ visits with the children. He noted that, while Petitioners worked
well together, Petitioner Mother was not able to care for the children on her own, which
was of concern because she would be expected to be the primary caregiver due to Petitioner
Father’s employment. Moreover, Mr. Brown testified that he was never able to observe
Petitioner Father parenting alone, but that he “would have serious concerns” about
Petitioner Father’s ability to do so. A different visitation supervisor confirmed this
testimony, noting that the visits were generally chaotic. She testified that the visits lacked
structure when Petitioner Father was absent, and that while the parents performed better
“as a unit,” there were still deficiencies in their parenting abilities.
In addition to the troubling patterns surrounding the visits, the court heard
testimony that Petitioners had not participated in services in some time. While Petitioner
Father testified that he believed the DHHR did not provide “enough” services, the DHHR
7
elicited testimony from him that he had not been in contact with, nor had he even attempted
to contact, the DHHR since February 2020, nearly five months before this hearing.
Petitioner Father attempted to explain his lack of contact by stating that he was prioritizing
a new business he had started and was “trying to build it up.”
The circuit court weighed the testimony presented and found that, while
Petitioners loved the children, it “d[id] not believe [they] [were] capable of taking care of
the children[.]” The circuit court then found that there was no reasonable likelihood the
conditions of abuse or neglect could be substantially corrected in the near future, and
terminated Petitioner Mother’s parental rights to all three children and Petitioner Father’s
parental rights to D.P. and G.P. 10 Petitioners now appeal that order.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court has long applied the following standard of review to appeals in
the context of abuse and neglect matters:
Although conclusions of law reached by a circuit court
are subject to de novo review, when an action, such as an abuse
and neglect case, is tried upon the facts without a jury, the
circuit court shall make a determination based upon the
evidence and shall make findings of fact and conclusions of
law as to whether such child is abused or neglected. These
findings shall not be set aside by a reviewing court unless
clearly erroneous. A finding is clearly erroneous when,
although there is evidence to support the finding, the reviewing
court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm
10
The circuit court also terminated N.B.’s parental rights to A.O. N.B.’s case is not
before us in the instant appeal.
8
conviction that a mistake has been committed. However, a
reviewing court may not overturn a finding simply because it
would have decided the case differently, and it must affirm a
finding if the circuit court’s account of the evidence is plausible
in light of the record viewed in its entirety.
Syl. Pt. 1, In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W. Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996).
With this standard in mind, we proceed to address the parties’ arguments.
III. ANALYSIS
Though Petitioners appeal the termination of their parental rights separately,
they advance nearly identical arguments. They contend the circuit court erred in
terminating their parental rights rather than imposing a less restrictive alternative
disposition. Put more simply, Petitioners contend that the evidence presented below
showed they were capable of caring for one or two of the three children; therefore, the
circuit court should have allowed them to retain their rights to at least one child. The
DHHR and the guardian respond that the circuit court was not required to exercise a less
restrictive alternative disposition upon finding there was no reasonable likelihood the
conditions of abuse or neglect could be substantially corrected in the near future. We agree.
Before proceeding to address the parties’ arguments regarding termination of
Petitioners’ parental rights, we feel compelled to once again remind the courts to adhere to
the statutory timeframes for improvement periods set forth in the West Virginia Code. The
post-adjudicatory improvement periods in this case started in August 2017 with regard to
9
A.O. and D.P., and in September 2018 with regard to G.P. All of these post-adjudicatory
improvement periods continued until disposition in June 2020, for periods of
approximately thirty-four and twenty-one months, respectively. This is well in excess of
the statutory time limits placed on post-adjudicatory improvement periods and
improvement periods generally.
West Virginia Code § 49-4-610(2) permits an initial six-month post-
adjudicatory improvement period. West Virginia Code § 49-4-610(6) permits a three-
month extension to such an improvement period upon the circuit court making specific
findings. Therefore, at the latest, the post-adjudicatory improvement periods stemming
from the original petition covering A.O. and D.P., having started in August 2017, should
have ended in May 2018, and the court should have moved to disposition. At that point,
the court could have granted a post-dispositional improvement period pursuant to West
Virginia Code § 49-4-610(3). It did not do so; instead it allowed those post-adjudicatory
improvement periods to continue for another two years. Further, we are compelled to note
that the orders granting these repeated extensions failed to make the requisite findings
under § 49-4-610(6) that: (1) Petitioners substantially complied with their improvement
periods; (2) the extension would not substantially impair the ability of the DHHR to
permanently place the children; and (3) the extension was in the best interests of the
children.
10
Similarly, Petitioners’ post-adjudicatory improvement periods resulting from
their adjudication on the amended petition started in September 2018. The same statutory
limits apply requiring these post-adjudicatory improvement periods to have ended no later
than June 2019. As above, the circuit court could have then proceeded to disposition and
granted a post-dispositional improvement period under West Virginia Code § 49-4-610(3)
if such an improvement period was warranted. Once again, the court did not do that,
instead allowing this improvement period to continue for an additional year. Also as above,
the orders granting these extensions did not make the requisite findings under West
Virginia Code § 49-4-610(6).
Not only did these improvement periods far exceed the statutory limits placed
on post-adjudicatory improvement periods specifically, they are also in excess of the limit
placed on all combinations of improvement periods generally. West Virginia Code § 49-
4-610(9) explicitly states:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, no
combination of any improvement periods or extensions thereto
may cause a child to be in foster care more than fifteen months
of the most recent twenty-two months, unless the court finds
compelling circumstances by clear and convincing evidence
that it is in the child’s best interests to extend the time limits
contained in this paragraph.
By granting these repeated extensions to Petitioners’ improvement periods, the circuit court
allowed them to exceed this time limitation. Yet again, there are no orders making the
requisite findings under § 49-4-610(9) to justify this failure to adhere to the statutory limits.
11
On more than one occasion, this Court has been compelled to remind the
circuit courts that the statutory time limits set forth in the Code are mandatory. In In re
J.G., 240 W. Va. 194, 809 S.E.2d 453 (2018), we made clear that
[t]he procedural and substantive requirements of West Virginia
Code § 49-4-601 et seq., the Rules of Procedure for Child
Abuse and Neglect [Proceedings], and our extensive body of
caselaw are not mere guidelines. The requirements contained
therein are not simply window dressing for orders which
substantively fail to reach the issues and detail the findings and
conclusions necessary to substantiate a court’s actions. The
time limitations and standards contained therein are mandatory
and may not be casually disregarded or enlarged without
detailed findings demonstrating exercise of clear-cut statutory
authority.
240 W. Va. at 204, 809 S.E.2d at 463.
In this vein, we have noted that “[c]hild abuse and neglect cases must be
recognized as being among the highest priority for the courts’ attention. Unjustified
procedural delays wreak havoc on a child’s development, stability and security.” Syl. Pt.
1, in part, In Interest of Carlita B., 185 W. Va. 613, 408 S.E.2d 365 (1991). To that effect,
we have held that “matters involving the abuse and neglect of children shall take
precedence over almost every other matter with which a court deals on a daily basis, and .
. . such proceedings must be resolved as expeditiously as possible.” Id. at 616, 408 S.E.2d
at 368, syl. pt. 5, in part. We are sympathetic to the plight facing our circuit courts and the
ever-increasing number of abuse and neglect petitions they must handle each year. We are
also cognizant that “many delays are occasioned by the fact that . . . aggravated parenting
problems are not remedied overnight” and of the desire to give parents every opportunity
12
to demonstrate sufficient improvement to regain custody of their children. Id. at 623, 408
S.E.2d at 375. However, as we have said before, those sympathies do not permit us to
disregard the express requirements set forth by the Legislature in the West Virginia Code.
In the case at bar, the circuit court blatantly disregarded those requirements
by permitting these post-adjudicatory improvement periods to extend far beyond their
statutory time limits. While this is not an issue that bears upon the resolution of the case
before us today, we are compelled to highlight this disregard to once again reiterate to the
circuit courts of this State that these time limits are mandatory and may only be enlarged
pursuant to the enumerated procedures for doing so in our statutes. Those procedures were
not followed in this case, and the delay resulting therefrom worked only to the detriment
of these children insofar as it delayed achieving permanency for them.
Having addressed this issue, we now return to the parties’ arguments
regarding the termination of Petitioners’ parental rights. Petitioners contend that the circuit
court erred in failing to employ a less-restrictive dispositional alternative before proceeding
to terminate their rights. In this regard, we have held:
As a general rule, the least restrictive alternative
regarding parental rights to custody of a child under [West
Virginia Code § 49-4-604 (2020)] will be employed; however,
courts are not required to exhaust every speculative possibility
of parental improvement before terminating parental rights
where it appears that the welfare of the child will be seriously
threatened, and this is particularly applicable to children under
the age of three years who are more susceptible to illness, need
consistent close interaction with fully committed adults, and
13
are likely to have their emotional and physical development
[delayed] by numerous placements.
Termination of parental rights, the most drastic remedy
under the statutory provision covering the disposition of
neglected children, [West Virginia Code § 49-4-604 (2020)]
may be employed without the use of intervening less restrictive
alternatives when it is found that there is no reasonable
likelihood under [West Virginia Code § 49-4-604(c)] that
conditions of neglect or abuse can be substantially corrected.
Syl. Pts. 1 and 2, In re R.J.M., 164 W. Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (1980).
Applying these holdings to the instant case, we have little trouble concluding
that the circuit court did not err in declining to impose a less restrictive alternative
disposition before terminating Petitioners’ parental rights. Both at the dispositional hearing
and in the final order terminating Petitioners’ parental rights, the circuit court found “there
is no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse and/or neglect can be substantially
corrected in the near future[.]” Having reviewed the entire record, we are convinced that
the court’s finding was justified.
Throughout the underlying proceedings, Petitioners’ improvement periods
were plagued by fluctuations from periods of full compliance to periods of substantial
noncompliance. In the beginning, Petitioners actively engaged in services and visits with
the children. But their engagement ended relatively quickly, and the DHHR informed the
court that they were no longer participating in services, and that they were not in contact
with their service provider. After the birth of G.P., things again improved, as Petitioners
began fully complying with services again and attended many visits with the children. In
14
fact, they were doing so well the DHHR increased those visits. However, just as before,
Petitioners stopped complying. They virtually dropped off the radar, cutting
communications with their service provider and failing to maintain any contact with the
DHHR for the five months preceding the dispositional hearing.11 When asked about this
failure to engage in services, Petitioner Father attempted to deflect by stating that he did
not believe the DHHR had provided “enough” services to Petitioners. As to the failure to
remain in contact, Petitioners explained that they were preoccupied starting a new business,
which apparently took priority over their efforts to regain custody of their children. 12
Moreover, even when Petitioners were improving, they were doing so only
minimally. Throughout the proceedings, the DHHR and the guardian repeatedly raised
concerns that Petitioners were not implementing the skills they learned in the services they
attended, and the basis for these concerns was clearly illustrated in Petitioners’ visits with
11
We acknowledge that beginning in March 2020, this Court’s pandemic protocols
resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic were in effect, which severely limited the
provision of services. However, that does not explain Petitioners’ sudden cessation of
contact in February 2020.
12
We do not suggest that Petitioners’ attempts to provide financially for the children
should be disregarded. By all accounts, Petitioner Father held steady employment which
required long working hours throughout these proceedings, and he consistently expressed
his desire to provide for the children. We commend him for doing so, and we do not wish
to discount his efforts to become self-employed so that he could assist more in the day-to-
day care of the children. However, we are concerned, just as the circuit court apparently
was, that both Petitioners failed to properly prioritize matters that were more directly
tailored to rectifying the conditions of abuse and neglect, specifically participation in
services that would enable them to properly supervise the children.
15
the children. From relatively early on in this matter, the guardian described the visits as
“really chaotic.” Visitation supervisors testified at the disposition hearing to that effect,
noting that Petitioner Mother simply was not able to safely care for all three children. They
also testified that Petitioner Father only performed “a little better,” and, when asked
whether he could parent the children alone, Mr. Brown, a service provider, testified that he
“would have serious concerns” about that prospect. We also cannot ignore that the service
providers and visitation supervisors were never able to observe Petitioner Father parenting
alone, which may have provided valuable information in determining whether these
children could be safely returned to his care. In any case, one theme is consistent
throughout the testimony of the individuals below: they were not confident Petitioners
could safely supervise these children if returned to their care. That lack of confidence
struck at the heart of this matter as the allegation in the petition was neglect resulting from
inadequate supervision. Accordingly, Petitioners had clearly not rectified the concerns
giving rise to the filing of the petition by the time of the dispositional hearing.
On the whole record, we are satisfied that the circuit court correctly found
that there was no reasonable likelihood Petitioners could substantially correct, in the near
future, the conditions of neglect that led to the filing of this petition. In fact, Petitioners
had not done so, despite having had nearly three years to show some improvement in this
regard. Because the circuit court’s finding was correct, per our explicit holdings in In re
R.J.M., it was not required to employ a less restrictive alternative disposition before
16
proceeding to termination. 164 W. Va. at 496, 266 S.E.2d at 114, syl. pts. 1 and 2.
Therefore, we affirm the termination of Petitioners’ parental rights.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Circuit Court of Mercer County’s
July 21, 2020, Order terminating Petitioner Mother’s parental rights to the minor children
A.O., D.P., and G.P., and Petitioner Father’s parental rights to the minor children D.P. and
G.P.
Affirmed.
17