In re T.W.-1 and N.W.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the termination of a father's parental rights in an abuse and neglect proceeding. The court held that the evidence supported adjudicating the father as an abusing parent, denied relief concerning conflicting dispositional orders, and upheld the denial of a subsequent improvement period and the termination disposition.

Holdings

1. The circuit court properly adjudicated father as an abusing parent because he failed to protect the children from their mother and failed to provide appropriate supervision despite an explicit court order prohibiting her presence in the home when the children were present.
2. The circuit court did not err by correcting the inadvertent entry of a conflicting improvement-period order and reaffirming termination without holding an additional hearing to explain the clerical error.
3. The circuit court acted within its discretion in denying father a subsequent improvement period because he failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he was likely to fully participate.
4. The circuit court properly found no reasonable likelihood that father could substantially correct the conditions of abuse or neglect, determined that termination was in the children's best interests, and terminated his parental rights rather than imposing a less restrictive alternative.

Questions Presented

1. Whether sufficient evidence supported adjudicating father as an abusing parent based on his failure to protect the children from their mother.
2. Whether the circuit court erred by terminating father's parental rights without a further hearing after inadvertently entering a conflicting order granting him a post-adjudicatory improvement period.
3. Whether the circuit court erred in denying father a subsequent improvement period.
4. Whether the evidence supported the finding that there was no reasonable likelihood that father could substantially correct the conditions of abuse or neglect and that termination of parental rights was in the children's best interests.

Disposition

affirmed