In re M.W.-1, M.W.-2, C.R., L.W., R.W., and H.W.

Summary

The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of a father's parental rights and custodial rights in a child abuse and neglect proceeding. The court held that the father was not entitled to an extension of his improvement period, that the circuit court properly rejected his proposed voluntary relinquishment, and that termination was supported by his failure to address substance abuse and domestic violence. The court remanded for limited proceedings concerning the identity and parental rights of C.R.'s father.

Holdings

1. Father was not entitled to relief because the record did not show that he moved for an extension or that the circuit court denied such a motion, and the issue was not preserved below.
2. A circuit court has discretion in an abuse and neglect proceeding to accept or reject a parent's proposed voluntary termination of parental rights and may reject the proposal and proceed to involuntary termination after independently considering the relevant factors.
3. Termination was proper because the evidence supported findings that there was no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse and neglect could be substantially corrected in the near future and that termination was necessary for the children's welfare.
4. The circuit court may terminate parental rights without first employing less-restrictive alternatives when there is no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse or neglect can be substantially corrected.
5. The matter had to be remanded for the limited purpose of determining what actions were necessary to ensure that C.R.'s permanent placement with the mother was not jeopardized by the unidentified status of C.R.'s biological father.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the circuit court erred in denying Father an extension of his post-adjudicatory improvement period.
2. Whether the circuit court erred in rejecting Father's proposed voluntary relinquishment of his parental rights at the dispositional hearing.
3. Whether the circuit court erred by terminating Father's parental rights without first imposing a less-restrictive disposition.
4. Whether the record required a remand to determine the identity and status of C.R.'s biological father so that C.R.'s permanent placement would not be jeopardized.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded