In Re: B.S. and J.S., 17-0739

Background

DHHR filed abuse-and-neglect petition after mother (E.S.) allegedly overdosed on heroin while caring for children B.S. and J.S.; mother was criminally charged and waived preliminary hearing.
Mother stipulated at adjudication and was granted a post-adjudicatory improvement period.
Court terminated that improvement period after positive drug screens and noncompliance; DHHR continued remedial services.
At disposition, DHHR and guardian testified mother missed drug screens, lied about work hours, attended only some parenting sessions, did not engage in substance-abuse treatment, and failed to benefit from services.
Circuit court found no reasonable likelihood of correction, terminated mother’s parental rights, and denied post-dispositional improvement period and post-termination visitation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mother made progress resolving abuse/neglect	Mother argued she obtained work, attended counseling, tried to obtain housing and thus progressed	DHHR showed missed drug screens, dishonesty about work, incomplete services, and lack of treatment benefit	Court: No progress; evidence supported termination finding
Whether court erred by denying extension of post-adjudicatory or granting post-dispositional improvement period	Mother sought extension/post-dispositional period based on improved circumstances	DHHR: mother failed to substantially comply or show a substantial change in circumstances	Court: No error—mother failed to meet statutory standards for extension or new period
Whether court improperly excluded evidence of false-positive drug screens (internet article/stomach medication)	Mother said stomach medication could cause false positives and offered an internet article	DHHR noted missed screens and treated misses as positives; mother declined to testify or present an expert	Court: Article not compelling; exclusion/discrediting of that evidence not error
Whether court erred in stopping workplace drug screening	Mother claimed DHHR stopped reasonable means to allow screening at work	DHHR/record showed Empowering Families provided workplace screens but ceased after multiple missed screens	Court: No error—screens were offered and stopped due to mother’s absences
Whether court erred denying post-termination visitation	Mother argued close bond and children’s wishes to return home	DHHR cited mother’s substance-abuse history and risk to children; children were young and not mature enough for their wishes to control	Court: Denial appropriate—continued contact would not be in children’s best interest

Key Cases Cited

In re Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (standard of review for circuit court findings in bench-tried abuse-and-neglect cases)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (application of review standard to abuse-and-neglect proceedings)
In re Christina L., 194 W.Va. 446, 460 S.E.2d 692 (1995) (factors for considering post-termination visitation with abusing parent)
In re Daniel D., 211 W.Va. 79, 562 S.E.2d 147 (2002) (discussion of post-termination visitation and best-interest analysis)