In re A.M. and S.R., 20-0959

Background

DHHR filed abuse and neglect petition (July 2020) concerning A.M. (16) and S.R. (14): allegations included parental drug use and manufacturing (meth), domestic violence in front of the children, failure to provide food/shelter, and that petitioner “pimped out” A.M. for drug money.
Law enforcement/CPS found drug paraphernalia and vials in the camper; petitioner’s boyfriend arrested on a warrant; children located living with others and reported instability; S.R. reported being afraid, self-harming, and suicidal; A.M. involved with an older married man.
Petitioner repeatedly failed to appear in person at hearings, missed most visits with the children, denied the allegations, and did not comply with DHHR-offered services (drug screens, parenting classes, psychological assessment).
Circuit court adjudicated petitioner an abusing and neglecting parent, placed children in residential treatment, denied petitioner an improvement period, and terminated petitioner’s parental rights (Nov. 6, 2020); post-termination visitation was also denied.
Permanency plan: adoption by current foster home; father of A.M. had rights terminated, father of S.R. deceased.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether petitioner was properly adjudicated an abusing/neglecting parent	DHHR’s evidence was insufficient to prove petitioner abused or neglected the children	CPS/guardian evidence showed drug use/manufacture, domestic violence, children unfed/unstable; petitioner offered no contradictory evidence and failed to appear	Adjudication affirmed: clear-and-convincing evidence supported findings; petitioner’s silence and failure to rebut evidence weighed against her
Whether termination of parental rights was appropriate versus a less-restrictive alternative	Termination was unnecessary; mother argued children needed her and could maintain bond	DHHR: no reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected; petitioner failed services, acknowledge problems, or to separate from abusive environment	Termination affirmed: court correctly found no reasonable likelihood of substantial correction and termination necessary for children’s welfare
Whether petitioner should have been granted an improvement period	Petitioner sought an improvement period to address deficiencies	DHHR: petitioner failed to participate in offered services and did not acknowledge problems	Denial affirmed: petitioner’s nonparticipation and failure to acknowledge the problems made an improvement period futile
Whether post-termination visitation should have been allowed	Petitioner argued a substantial parent-child bond from lifelong parenting supports visitation	DHHR/guardian: children, particularly S.R., feared petitioner; continued contact would be detrimental given ongoing drug use and instability	Denial affirmed: record did not show a beneficial bond; visitation would not be in children’s best interest

Key Cases Cited

In Interest of 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) (statement of standard of review in abuse and neglect cases)
In re F.S., 233 W. Va. 538, 759 S.E.2d 769 (2014) (clear-and-convincing proof standard explained)
W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res. ex rel. Wright v. Doris S., 197 W. Va. 489, 475 S.E.2d 865 (1996) (silence/failure to rebut probative evidence may be considered affirmative evidence)
In re Timber M., 231 W. Va. 44, 743 S.E.2d 352 (2013) (failure to acknowledge the problem undermines effectiveness of improvement period)
In re R.J.M., 164 W.Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (1980) (termination may be employed without less-restrictive alternatives when correction unlikely)
In re Kristin Y., 227 W. Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (2011) (applies termination standards and related principles)
In re Christina L., 194 W.Va. 446, 460 S.E.2d 692 (1995) (post-termination visitation may be considered when in child’s best interest)
In re Daniel D., 211 W. Va. 79, 562 S.E.2d 147 (2002) (factors for post-termination contact; bond and child’s wishes considered)