In Re: A.S., H.S.-1, K.S.-1, K.S.-2 and G.S., 16-0747

DHHR filed abuse-and-neglect petitions (Feb 2016) alleging petitioner (father) and his girlfriend engaged in domestic violence in the children’s presence and against the children.
Father waived a preliminary hearing, was adjudicated an abusing parent after stipulating to the petition, and the court ordered domestic-violence counseling, random drug screens, psychological evaluation, and no contact with his girlfriend.
Father requested a post-adjudicatory improvement period; the court held a dispositional hearing in June 2016.
Evidence at disposition showed father repeatedly violated the no-contact order, maintained a continuous relationship with the girlfriend, and the children reported extensive domestic violence and fear of return to the home.
Service providers and the guardian questioned father’s likelihood of meaningful change given prior similar proceedings and a recently completed improvement period in an earlier case that was followed by the present petition.
The circuit court denied the post-adjudicatory improvement period, terminated father’s parental rights to five children, and father appealed only the denial of the improvement period; the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Father’s Argument	DHHR/Guardian’s Argument	Held
Whether the circuit court erred in denying a post-adjudicatory improvement period	Father argued he acknowledged his problems and participated in services, so he should receive an improvement period	Father had a history of identical allegations, violated court-ordered no-contact with girlfriend, continued a "toxic" relationship, and children feared him; thus he was unlikely to fully participate or change	Denial affirmed: father failed to show by clear and convincing evidence he was likely to fully participate or correct conditions
Whether termination of parental rights was improper	Father did not contest termination on appeal	Evidence showed ongoing risk to children, children’s expressed fear, prior failed improvement period, and continued parental misconduct	Termination affirmed (father did not raise this issue on appeal)

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (W. Va. 1996) (standard of review for circuit-court fact findings in child-abuse/neglect cases)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (W. Va. 2011) (citing Tiffany Marie S. standard)
In re M.M., 236 W.Va. 108, 778 S.E.2d 338 (W. Va. 2015) (circuit court discretion in granting improvement periods)
In re Katie S., 198 W.Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (W. Va. 1996) (court discretion to grant improvement period under statutory requirements)
In re Charity H., 215 W.Va. 208, 599 S.E.2d 631 (W. Va. 2004) (parent must demonstrate 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 (W. Va. 2013) (failure to acknowledge the problem can render improvement period futile)