In re B.J. and A.A.

Summary

The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of petitioner mother J.Y.’s parental rights to B.J. and A.A. The court upheld the denial of an improvement period, finding that petitioner had not demonstrated likely compliance with required services and drug screening. The court also upheld the denial of post-termination visitation and rejected legal guardianship as a less-restrictive alternative.

Holdings

1. A parent seeking an improvement period must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the parent is likely to fully participate, and the circuit court may deny the request when the parent's demonstrated noncompliance with court orders and drug-screening requirements undermines that likelihood.
2. Termination of parental rights is authorized 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; intervening less-restrictive alternatives are not required when those statutory conditions are met.
3. The DHHR is not required in every case to prove that each child requested termination of a parent's rights. The court must consider the wishes of a child age fourteen or older, or otherwise of an age of discretion, regarding permanent termination.
4. After parental rights are terminated, continued visitation or contact may be considered only when it is in the child's best interests, including consideration of an established emotional bond, the child's wishes when sufficiently mature, and evidence that contact would not be detrimental to the child.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by denying Mother's motion for an improvement period.
2. Whether the circuit court clearly erred in finding no reasonable likelihood that Mother could substantially correct the conditions of abuse and neglect in the near future and in terminating her parental rights without an intervening less-restrictive disposition.
3. Whether the circuit court improperly terminated Mother's parental rights without proof that each child requested termination.
4. Whether the circuit court erred by denying Mother's request for post-termination visitation.

Disposition

affirmed