In re C.O. and J.O., 21-0188

DHHR filed abuse-and-neglect petitions (Oct 2019) alleging both parents used controlled substances and petitioner failed to protect the children; children were removed from the home after observations of neglect and unsafe supervision.
Petitioner stipulated at adjudication (Jan 2020) that his substance abuse affected his parenting and that he failed to protect the children; the court adjudicated him an abusing parent and ordered services.
A post-adjudicatory improvement period was later granted (June 2020), reviewed as partially compliant (Aug 2020), but ultimately terminated (Nov 2020) for lack of progress, missed drug screens, and unsafe supervised visitations.
A dispositional hearing was continued on Jan 14, 2021 with the next hearing set for Feb 8, 2021 (notice acknowledged on the record and in a written order); petitioner did not attend the Feb. 8 final dispositional hearing, though counsel appeared.
At the final hearing the court found petitioner failed to accept responsibility, did not properly supervise or change parenting during visits, and had not complied with services; the court denied a post-dispositional improvement period and terminated petitioner’s parental rights.
The court also relied on statutory time limits (children had been in foster care 15 months) to deny an additional improvement period absent clear and convincing evidence of compelling circumstances in the children’s best interests.

Issue	Petitioner’s Argument	Respondent / Court’s Argument	Held
Denial of extension of post-adjudicatory improvement period	Petitioner contends he should have been granted an extension because he was willing to comply, passed drug screens, and would demonstrate proper parenting.	No record request for such an extension was made; appellate courts do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal.	Waived on appeal; no relief.
Denial of a post-dispositional improvement period (second improvement period)	Petitioner argued he was likely to participate and could correct parenting deficits if given more time.	Petitioner failed to show likelihood of full participation or a substantial change in circumstances; he missed drug screens, did not modify parenting despite instruction, and visits showed unsafe supervision. Also statutory time limits barred further extension absent compelling evidence in children’s best interests.	Court properly denied post-dispositional improvement period; no error.
Lack of notice of final dispositional hearing	Petitioner claimed he was not notified of the Feb. 8, 2021 hearing.	The Jan. 14, 2021 hearing date was announced on the record and an order (entered Jan. 21) provided written notice; petitioner was present on Jan. 14 and counsel acknowledged the date.	Notice was adequate; no error.

In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (W. Va. 2011) (appellate standard: findings of fact not set aside unless clearly erroneous).
In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W. Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (W. Va. 1996) (standard for reviewing bench-tried abuse-and-neglect cases).
Noble v. W. Va. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles, 223 W. Va. 818, 679 S.E.2d 650 (W. Va. 2009) (issues raised first on appeal generally not considered).
In re M.M., 236 W. Va. 108, 778 S.E.2d 338 (W. Va. 2015) (circuit court has discretion to grant or deny improvement periods).
In re Tonjia M., 212 W. Va. 443, 573 S.E.2d 354 (W. Va. 2002) (courts may deny improvement periods when no improvement is likely).
State ex rel. Amy M. v. Kaufman, 196 W. Va. 251, 470 S.E.2d 205 (W. Va. 1996) (statutory limits on improvement periods and need for permanency).