In Re: C.J. and M.S., 16-0871

DHHR filed an abuse-and-neglect petition (Jan 2016) after allegations that mother M.M. regularly used drugs and that the children witnessed domestic violence; children reported being left at bus stops and instructed not to disclose home events.
In-camera and preliminary hearings produced child testimony describing daily drug use (including IV use), missed bus pickups, and the mother sleeping through parenting; officer testimony corroborated missed pickups and the boyfriend’s impaired appearance.
The circuit court found the children in imminent danger, removed them into DHHR custody, and adjudicated mother for abuse and neglect (Mar 2016).
Court-ordered services included in-home parenting, random drug screens, and a psychological evaluation; mother later moved for a post-adjudicatory improvement period.
At disposition (Aug 2016), DHHR testimony and the evaluator’s report showed mother largely refused services, minimized/denied allegations, impeded drug testing (banned from day report center; refused an alternate testing site), and missed visits because she would not provide clean screens.
The circuit court denied the improvement period, found no reasonable likelihood of correction, and terminated mother’s parental rights; the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the circuit court erred in denying M.M. a post-adjudicatory improvement period	M.M. claimed she was seeing a therapist, seeking outpatient rehab, and was willing to do anything to keep her children	DHHR and guardian argued M.M. refused or impeded court-ordered services, denied allegations, and was unlikely to fully participate in an improvement period	Denial affirmed: mother failed to show by clear and convincing evidence she was likely to fully participate or correct conditions; refusal to acknowledge problems made an improvement period futile

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (W. Va. 1996) (standard of review for circuit-court findings in bench trials)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (W. Va. 2011) (procedural guidance on child-abuse-and-neglect review)
In re: M.M., 236 W.Va. 108, 778 S.E.2d 338 (W. Va. 2015) (trial court discretion to grant or deny improvement periods)
In re Katie S., 198 W.Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (W. Va. 1996) (improvement-period discretion)
In re: Charity H., 215 W.Va. 208, 599 S.E.2d 631 (W. Va. 2004) (entitlement to improvement period conditioned on showing likelihood of full participation by clear and convincing evidence)
In re Timber M., 231 W.Va. 44, 743 S.E.2d 352 (W. Va. 2013) (failure to acknowledge problems can make improvement period futile)