In Re: A.G. and E.W., 16-0547

DHHR filed abuse-and-neglect petition (Dec 2015) alleging mother B.W. physically abused her children A.G. (15) and E.W. (12), used illegal drugs, allowed E.W.’s father (whose rights had been previously terminated and who was subject to a no-contact order) to have contact with the children, and committed domestic violence in the children’s presence.
Children were removed and placed with their maternal grandmother; court ordered supervised visitation for mother.
At adjudication (Jan 2016) mother stipulated to the petition allegations and the court found abuse; she then moved for a post-adjudicatory improvement period.
At dispositional hearing (Apr 2016) testimony showed mother attended therapy but had a long history of domestic violence/substance abuse, maintained contact with the prohibited father, and minimized/denied the abuses; children testified about ongoing abuse, drug use, and being asked to lie.
The circuit court denied the improvement period as unlikely to succeed given temporary past improvements and the mother’s lack of full accountability, and found no reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected; it terminated parental rights (May 9, 2016).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mother was entitled to a post-adjudicatory improvement period	B.W. claimed she showed significant lifestyle changes and engagement in counseling making her likely to fully participate	DHHR and guardian argued her history of repeated services, continued contact with the prohibited father, minimization/denial of abuse, and instability made an improvement period futile	Denied — mother failed to show by clear and convincing evidence likelihood of full participation; court’s discretion affirmed
Whether termination of parental rights was proper under WV Code §49-4-604(b)(6)	B.W. argued termination was erroneous given recent therapy and claimed willingness to change	DHHR and guardian argued continued abuse, domestic violence, drug use, failure to follow rehabilitative efforts, and lack of correction justify termination	Affirmed — court found no reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected and that termination was necessary for the children’s welfare

In re Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (standard for reviewing circuit court findings in bench trials)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (applies Tiffany standard to abuse-and-neglect appeals)
In re M.M., 236 W.Va. 108, 778 S.E.2d 338 (2015) (circuit court discretion to grant improvement periods)
In re Katie S., 198 W.Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (1996) (improvement period is within court discretion and must meet statutory requirements)
In re Charity H., 215 W.Va. 208, 599 S.E.2d 631 (2004) (parent must show by clear and convincing evidence likelihood of full participation in improvement period)
In re Timber M., 231 W.Va. 44, 743 S.E.2d 352 (2013) (failure to acknowledge the problem makes improvement period futile and harms the child)