In Re: A.D. and T.D., 16-1054

DHHR filed abuse-and-neglect petition (Nov 2015) alleging father C.D. used prescription drugs, left paraphernalia within children’s reach, and was under the influence while caring for the children; father stipulated to the petition the next month.
Court granted a post-adjudicatory improvement period requiring substance-abuse and psychological evaluations, parenting and adult life-skills classes, and random drug screens; supervised visitation was allowed.
Over multiple review hearings, evidence showed father visited but repeatedly failed to complete evaluations, drug screens, and classes; he admitted to using marijuana and tested positive for multiple illicit substances.
The court terminated the improvement period (Aug 11, 2016) after evidence that visitations were unhealthy, father was argumentative, and he failed to implement appropriate parenting techniques.
At the dispositional hearing (Sept 23, 2016), DHHR presented further noncompliance and multiple positive drug tests; the court terminated father’s parental rights. Father appealed, arguing denial of a continuance and denial of post‑termination visitation.

Issue	Petitioner's Argument	DHHR / Circuit Court Argument	Held
Denial of post‑termination visitation	Continued visitation was in the children’s best interest due to existing bond and not detrimental	Visitations had become unhealthy; father failed to implement parenting techniques and continued substance abuse	Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion in denying post‑termination visitation
Denial of continuance for dispositional hearing	Substitute counsel had inadequate time to prepare; denial prejudiced father	Substitute counsel had ~1 week; issues were known and hearing had been continued previously; child’s interest in prompt resolution outweighed delay	Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion denying continuance
Termination of parental rights	Father argued errors in proceedings (limited to above two grounds on appeal)	Father failed to remedy conditions (noncompliance, positive drug tests, discharge from services) supporting termination	Affirmed: termination supported by record and clearly permissible under abuse/neglect standard

In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (standard of review for circuit court findings in abuse/neglect cases)
In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (circuit court findings reviewed for clear error)
In re Emily, 208 W.Va. 325, 540 S.E.2d 542 (2000) (trial court is charged with weighing witness credibility in abuse/neglect proceedings)
Michael D.C. v. Wanda L.C., 201 W.Va. 381, 497 S.E.2d 531 (1997) (appellate courts defer to trial court credibility assessments)
In re Christina L., 194 W.Va. 446, 460 S.E.2d 692 (1995) (post‑termination visitation may be granted in appropriate cases and is discretionary)
In the Interest of Carlita B., 185 W.Va. 613, 408 S.E.2d 365 (1991) (abuse/neglect cases are high priority; delays harm children)
State v. Jones, 84 W.Va. 85, 99 S.E. 271 (1919) (continuance is within trial court discretion; reversal requires shown prejudice)