In re X and Y

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia · 2017 · Family Law

Family LawAbuse and NeglectTermination of Parental RightsImprovement Periodsabuse and neglecttermination of parental rightsimprovement periodpost-dispositional improvement period

Facts

The abuse and neglect petition alleged that the father committed domestic violence against the mother, frequently abused alcohol, spent most of his income on alcohol, and verbally abused the mother and children. At the preliminary hearing, he admitted that he was an alcoholic, had committed domestic violence against multiple women including the mother, and spent the majority of his income on alcohol to the detriment of his children; the court treated these admissions as a stipulated adjudication and granted him a six-month post-adjudicatory improvement period. During that period, he failed to make himself available for services or inpatient treatment for alcoholism offered by DHHR. He also pleaded guilty to strangulation and second-offense domestic battery and received consecutive prison sentences totaling two to five years.

Issue

Whether the circuit court erred in terminating the father's parental rights rather than imposing a less restrictive dispositional alternative, where he failed to follow through with rehabilitative services and argued that incarceration had made him sober.

Rule

Under West Virginia Code § 49-4-604(b)(6), a circuit court shall terminate parental rights when it finds that there is no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of neglect or abuse can be substantially corrected in the near future and that termination is necessary for the children's welfare. Under § 49-4-604(c)(3), such no reasonable likelihood exists when the abusing parent has not responded to or followed through with a reasonable family case plan or other rehabilitative efforts. Termination may be ordered without employing less restrictive alternatives when that finding is made.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Morgantown, West Virginia, the court adjudicated Daniel Mercer for abusing and neglecting his daughter after he admitted that his alcohol use and violent outbursts in the home endangered her. During a six-month improvement period, the agency arranged inpatient treatment, counseling, and case-plan meetings, but Daniel repeatedly skipped intake appointments and stopped answering his caseworker's calls.

At disposition, which ruling is most consistent with the governing doctrine?

Explanation. The majority rule permits termination under West Virginia Code § 49-4-604(b)(6) when two findings are made: no reasonable likelihood the conditions can be substantially corrected in the near future, and termination is necessary for the child's welfare. Under § 49-4-604(c)(3), failure to respond to or follow through with a reasonable family case plan or rehabilitative efforts supports the no-reasonable-likelihood finding. Daniel's repeated nonparticipation in offered services fits that rule. (Derived from In re X and Y (n.d.).)