In Re: A.P., 17-0617

DHHR filed abuse-and-neglect petition after newborn A.P. tested positive for cocaine and mother L.P. tested positive for cocaine and amphetamines; mother had prior involuntary termination of parental rights to three older children in 2009.
Emergency custody was ratified; at adjudication mother admitted drug use during pregnancy and was adjudicated an abusing parent.
Court offered services (parenting and adult life skills, random drug screens, supervised visitation contingent on clean screens, outpatient treatment pending inpatient enrollment).
Mother intermittently participated in outpatient treatment but failed to comply with drug screens, inpatient treatment, visitation, and parenting/adult life skills; she blamed service providers and resisted some providers.
At disposition the DHHR and guardian recommended termination; court denied mother’s requests for post-adjudicatory or post-dispositional improvement periods and terminated parental rights for no reasonable likelihood of substantial correction and for the child’s welfare.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court erred by denying improvement periods before terminating parental rights	L.P.: DHHR should make reasonable efforts and an improvement period would allow reunification; she was participating in treatment	DHHR: aggravated circumstances (prior involuntary terminations) excuse reasonable-efforts requirement; mother failed to comply with required services	Court: No error — discretion to deny improvement periods; mother failed to show likelihood of full participation
Whether DHHR had duty to provide reasonable reunification efforts here	L.P.: DHHR had statutory duty to preserve the family	DHHR: West Virginia Code excludes reasonable-efforts requirement when parent previously had involuntary termination	Court: DHHR not required to make reasonable efforts due to prior involuntary terminations; mother did not dispute that fact
Whether there was reasonable likelihood conditions could be substantially corrected	L.P.: Participation in outpatient program showed potential for correction	DHHR: failure to comply with multiple services shows lack of response to case plan	Court: No reasonable likelihood — mother did not follow through with required services
Whether termination was in child’s best interests	L.P.: An improvement period would better serve reunification	DHHR/Guardian: Ongoing noncompliance endangered child; termination needed for welfare and permanency	Court: Termination appropriate and necessary for child’s welfare

In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (standard of review for circuit-court findings in abuse-and-neglect cases)
In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (reviewing court will not set aside factual findings unless clearly erroneous)
In re: M.M., 236 W.Va. 108, 778 S.E.2d 338 (2015) (granting improvement periods rests within circuit court discretion)
In re Katie S., 198 W.Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (1996) (court has discretion to grant improvement periods within 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 to obtain 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 no reasonable likelihood of correction)
In re Kristin Y., 227 W.Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (2011) (termination is the most drastic remedy but permissible where conditions cannot be substantially corrected)