In Re: A v. 1, 16-0886

DHHR filed abuse and neglect petition in Sep 2015 alleging A.V.-1 was drug-addicted at birth and petitioner had a heroin history.
Petitioner waived preliminary hearing; court noted an outstanding Maryland arrest warrant.
In Nov 2015 adjudicatory hearing, petitioner stipulated to allegations and admitted significant heroin addiction; court granted an improvement period with conditions.
Petitioner was incarcerated in Feb 2016, then resumed improvement period after release; progress during 2016 was minimal.
June–Aug 2016: multiple hearings found petitioner failed to visit, failed to engage in services, and tested positive for drugs; improvement period terminated.
Sept 8, 2016 dispositional order terminated petitioner’s parental rights to A.V.-1; child placed for adoption; appellate challenge follows.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there imminent danger to the child at petition filing?	A.V.-1 argues Suboxone use, even if prescribed, may not meet imminent danger.	DHHR contends the mother's ongoing substance abuse impaired parenting, creating imminent danger.	Imminent danger found; evidence showed drug use and parenting impairment at filing.
Was the adjudication proper given petitioner’s stipulation?	Petitioner challenges sufficiency of admission to support abuse/neglect.	Petitioner voluntarily stipulated and understood consequences, so adjudication stands.	No error; stipulation valid and admissible; admitted admissions upheld.
Did petitioner receive ineffective assistance of counsel	Waiver of preliminary hearing was unhelpful and deprived rights.	Waiver was knowing and voluntary; no ineffective assistance shown.	No ineffective assistance recognized; record supports waiver.
Was termination of parental rights supported by the evidence?	Petitioner argues conditions could be remedied and rights should not be terminated.	Evidence showed no reasonable likelihood of substantial correction due to noncompliance and ongoing substance abuse.	No error; substantial evidence supported termination and no reasonable likelihood of remediation.

In re Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (standard for reviewing abuse/neglect findings)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (clarifies standard of review in abuse/neglect cases)
Maples v. West Virginia Dep’t of Commerce, 197 W.Va. 318, 475 S.E.2d 410 (1996) (party cannot raise invited or silent-error on appeal)
Hopkins v. DC Chapman Ventures, Inc., 228 W.Va. 213, 719 S.E.2d 381 (2011) (admission of error invited by party; no relief for adjudication)
State v. Riley, 151 W.Va. 364, 151 S.E.2d 308 (1966) (record reflects voluntary admission regarding consequences)
State v. Miller, 194 W.Va. 3, 459 S.E.2d 114 (1995) (ineffective assistance standard in criminal context applied)