In Re: B.P.-1, B.P.-2., and E.P., 17-0495

DHHR filed abuse-and-neglect petition (Sept. 2016) after mother (A.P.) left three children with her mother and her mother's boyfriend — whom A.P. had reported as sexually abusing the children. A.P. was incarcerated at filing.
Allegations included extensive domestic violence in children’s presence (including stabbing and threats), repeated incarcerations for domestic battery/assault, and substance abuse.
At adjudicatory hearing DHHR presented testimony about A.P.’s history of drug use (methamphetamine, opiates, Flakka), multiple incarcerations since 2014, and incidents of violence in children’s presence; circuit court adjudicated A.P. an abusing parent.
A.P. sought a post-adjudicatory improvement period and submitted a psychological evaluation finding bipolar disorder, borderline intellectual functioning, prior substance abuse, and that she was capable of participating though evaluator noted concern about veracity and long drug history.
After the motion for an improvement period, A.P. was arrested for methamphetamine possession following another domestic violence investigation.
Circuit court denied the improvement period, granted DHHR’s motion to terminate parental rights (May 5, 2017), and denied post-termination visitation; Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to adjudicate A.P. an abusing parent	A.P.: testimony lacked evidence of harm at time of filing; not proven by clear and convincing evidence	DHHR: history of substance abuse, domestic violence in children’s presence, leaving children with alleged abusers, and recent arrests show abuse/neglect	Affirmed — evidence (violence, substance use, leaving children with alleged abusers, incarcerations) supported adjudication by clear and convincing evidence
Whether to grant post-adjudicatory improvement period	A.P.: she took steps and is capable of participating in improvement period	DHHR: A.P.’s drug history, lack of veracity, and subsequent methamphetamine arrest show she is unlikely to fully participate	Affirmed denial — mother failed to show by clear and convincing evidence likelihood of full participation or correction of conditions
Whether to allow post-termination visitation	A.P.: expresses love; visitation would preserve bond	DHHR/guardian: continued contact would harm children given ongoing substance abuse and violence	Affirmed denial — record lacked evidence visitation would be in children’s best interest or not detrimental

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (W. Va. 1996) (standard of review for findings of fact in abuse/neglect cases)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (W. Va. 2011) (articulating standard of review citation used)
In Interest of S.C., 168 W.Va. 366, 284 S.E.2d 867 (W. Va. 1981) (DHHR’s burden to prove conditions at time of filing by clear and convincing evidence)
Brown v. Gobble, 196 W.Va. 559, 474 S.E.2d 489 (W. Va. 1996) (definition of clear and convincing standard)
In re F.S. and Z.S., 233 W.Va. 538, 759 S.E.2d 769 (W. Va. 2014) (clear-and-convincing standard discussion in abuse/neglect context)
In re: M.M., 236 W.Va. 108, 778 S.E.2d 338 (W. Va. 2015) (discretion to grant or deny improvement period)
In re Katie S., 198 W.Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (W. Va. 1996) (court discretion on improvement periods)
In re Christina L., 194 W.Va. 446, 460 S.E.2d 692 (W. Va. 1995) (factors for post-termination visitation consideration)
In re Daniel D., 211 W.Va. 79, 562 S.E.2d 147 (W. Va. 2002) (syllabus concerning post-termination visitation factors)