In Re: A.H., 17-0783

Mother (J.W.) had ongoing abuse/neglect proceedings involving four older children; newborn A.H. was added to the case in Dec. 2015. DHHR alleged repeated drug use, missed services, arrests, unstable housing, and periods of incarceration.
A.H. was placed with her father (a non‑abusing parent) after DHHR removed the child due to concerns about mother’s drug/alcohol use and instability. Father sought an EPO that was denied.
Mother received multiple post‑adjudicatory and post‑dispositional improvement periods and extensions from mid‑2016 through Jan. 2017. Despite services, she missed many drug screens, tested positive for substances after being granted an improvement period, failed to complete therapy/counseling, and lacked stable housing.
At the dispositional hearing, providers testified to substantial noncompliance: many missed drug/alcohol screens, incomplete therapy, sporadic visitation, and continued driving without a valid license. Mother argued temporary relapse and recent stabilization (housing, employment).
The circuit court found mother had not substantially complied, that there was no reasonable likelihood she could correct conditions, and terminated her parental rights to A.H.; permanency plan is for A.H. to remain with her father.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether termination was improper because less‑restrictive alternatives were required under WV Code §49‑4‑604(b)	Mother: Court should prefer least‑restrictive alternative (child stable with father), so extend services rather than terminate.	Court/DHHR: Mother had lengthy services and multiple extensions but failed to substantially comply; child is young and needs permanency.	Affrmed: termination appropriate given mother’s repeated noncompliance, positive tests after improvement period, unstable housing, and child’s tender age.
Whether father (party in interest) was entitled to participate in discovery	Father: As a party in interest he should be treated as a “party” under Rule 3(m) and allowed discovery to aid child safety.	Circuit court/DHHR: Rule 3(m) defines “parties” narrowly; father was not a respondent and record shows no basis to include him for discovery.	Affirmed: father did not meet Rule 3(m) definition of “party”; denial of discovery was not error.

In re Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223 (1996) (standard of review for circuit court findings in abuse/neglect bench trials)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89 (2011) (application of abuse and neglect review standard)
In re R.J.M., 164 W.Va. 496 (1980) (least‑restrictive alternative rule; termination permissible without exhausting speculative options, especially for young children)
In re Emily, 208 W.Va. 325 (2000) (permitting termination of one parent’s rights while leaving non‑abusing parent's rights intact; fitness of one parent does not guarantee rights of the other)