In re K.M.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the termination of petitioner father B.M.’s parental rights to K.M. The court upheld findings that petitioner failed to acknowledge the conditions of abuse and neglect, that his exhibitionistic disorder was not correctable through available services, and that termination was necessary for the child’s welfare. The court also declined to address one assignment of error because the petitioner failed to support it with legal authority as required by the appellate rules.

Holdings

1. A parent is not entitled to an improvement period when the parent fails to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he is likely to fully participate and refuses to acknowledge the conditions of abuse and neglect; the circuit court therefore did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant or continue the improvement period.
2. The circuit court did not commit reversible error in finding that the conditions of abuse and neglect could not be substantially corrected and in terminating petitioner's parental rights.
3. Courts are not required to exhaust every speculative possibility of parental improvement when the child's welfare would be seriously threatened, and termination may occur without intervening less restrictive alternatives when there is no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse or neglect can be substantially corrected.
4. The court declined to address the challenge to the psychologist's testimony because petitioner's appellate brief failed to cite legal authority and therefore did not comply with West Virginia Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(c)(7).

Questions Presented

1. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion or violated petitioner's due process rights by declining to continue or grant a post-dispositional improvement period.
2. Whether the circuit court erred in finding that the conditions of abuse and neglect could not be corrected and that termination of parental rights was warranted.
3. Whether the circuit court improperly permitted the psychologist to testify about additional conclusions without advance notice or an amended report.
4. Whether the circuit court erred by terminating petitioner's parental rights without allowing additional time for improvement.

Disposition

affirmed