In Re: A.L. and F.R., 17-0284

In May–July 2016 A.L. and mother S.R. tested positive for methamphetamine and opiates at A.L.’s birth; DHHR filed an abuse and neglect petition in July 2016.
From May 2016 petitioner was on an agreed protection plan; the circuit court later granted a post-adjudicatory improvement period with a case plan requiring drug‐free status, evaluations, substance-abuse treatment, parenting/adult life skills, anger management, screenings, and visitation.
Petitioner failed to complete any terms of the improvement period: positive drug screens in June 2016 and January 2017, largely ceased submitting to screens after August 2016, stopped services in Sept. 2016, missed required evaluations, and ceased visitation after August 2016.
In February 2017 DHHR moved to terminate parental and custodial rights; after a dispositional hearing the circuit court terminated S.R.’s parental rights in an order entered March 13, 2017.
S.R. appealed solely arguing the DHHR did not make reasonable reunification efforts because of frequent worker turnover and poor communication; DHHR and guardian supported the termination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DHHR made reasonable reunification efforts despite worker turnover	DHHR’s efforts were thwarted by constant worker changes and inadequate communication, so efforts were not reasonable	DHHR provided required services and made them available; the parent is responsible for initiating/completing improvement-period terms	Court held DHHR made reasonable efforts—the record shows services were available and petitioner failed to complete any terms
Whether termination of parental rights was proper given petitioner’s noncompliance with improvement period	(implicit) Termination was inappropriate without reasonable DHHR efforts	Petitioner repeatedly failed drug screens, stopped services and visitation, and did not complete evaluations; West Virginia law places initiation/completion burden on parent	Court affirmed termination: no reasonable likelihood petitioner could correct conditions and statutory standard for termination met

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (W.Va. 1996) (standard of review for circuit-court factual findings in abuse/neglect cases)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (W.Va. 2011) (review and standards relating to improvement periods and appellate review)
State v. Michael M., 202 W.Va. 350, 504 S.E.2d 177 (W.Va. 1998) (priority for securing adoptive placement and considerations for permanent out-of-home placement)
James M. v. Maynard, 185 W.Va. 648, 408 S.E.2d 400 (W.Va. 1991) (guardian ad litem’s role continues until permanent placement is achieved)