In re: S.S.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the termination of a father's parental rights to S.S. The court held that incarceration, the father's failure to participate in rehabilitative efforts, and evidence that S.S. lived in the same residence where another child was physically abused supported termination without a less-restrictive alternative. The court also found no error in conducting the dispositional hearing without the incarcerated father's presence because he had not requested permission to attend.

Holdings

1. Termination of parental rights may be ordered without intervening less-restrictive alternatives when there is no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse or neglect can be substantially corrected in the near future and termination is necessary for the child's welfare. Father's continued incarceration prevented him from completing or participating in the terms of an improvement period, so the termination was not error.
2. The DHHR was not required to show that S.S. herself was directly abused before seeking termination of Father's parental rights. Because S.S. lived in the same residence while A.B. suffered extensive physical abuse and Father failed to provide a plausible explanation, termination of Father's parental rights to S.S. was not error.
3. Whether an incarcerated parent may attend a dispositional hearing concerning possible termination of parental rights is committed to the sound discretion of the circuit court. An incarcerated parent must inform the circuit court of the incarceration and request permission to attend; because the record contained no evidence that Father made such a request, the circuit court did not err by proceeding without him.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the circuit court erred by terminating Father's parental rights without imposing a less-restrictive dispositional alternative.
2. Whether the evidence supported termination of Father's parental rights to S.S. even though S.S. was not shown to have been directly abused.
3. Whether the circuit court erred by conducting the dispositional hearing without Father's presence while he was incarcerated.

Disposition

affirmed