In Re: C.S., 16-1113

Mother S.K. previously had parental rights to other children involuntarily terminated in 2015 due to significant drug addiction and failure to comply with services.
S.K. gave birth to C.S. on May 13, 2016; medical tests showed C.S.’s umbilical cord positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine and the newborn exhibited withdrawal symptoms; S.K. tested positive for amphetamine after delivery.
DHHR filed an abuse and neglect petition based on the prior termination and the newborn’s drug exposure; preliminary and adjudicatory hearings produced medical and service-provider testimony documenting maternal drug use and missed services/drug screens.
The circuit court adjudicated S.K. an abusing parent on August 18, 2016, finding the child was born with drugs in her system and that maternal substance abuse impaired parenting.
At disposition, the court denied S.K.’s motion for an improvement period, finding no reasonable likelihood she could correct the issues due to ongoing noncompliance and her denial of responsibility; parental rights were terminated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DHHR met burden to adjudicate S.K. an abusing parent	DHHR failed to prove abuse by clear and convincing evidence	DHHR presented medical tests (umbilical cord, newborn withdrawal) and testimony of maternal drug use and prior termination	Adjudication affirmed: evidence supported finding S.K. abused child via substance use
Whether circuit court erred in denying improvement period	S.K. argued she participated in some services and remedied substance issues since prior termination	DHHR and court cited missed drug screens, missed services, prior noncompliance, and S.K.’s denial of drug use while pregnant	Denial affirmed: court reasonably found S.K. unlikely to fully participate and that denial made improvement period futile

In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (W.Va. 2011) (standard of review for circuit court findings in abuse and neglect cases)
In re Joseph A., 199 W.Va. 438, 485 S.E.2d 176 (W.Va. 1997) (DHHR burden to prove conditions by clear and convincing evidence)
In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (W.Va. 1996) (articulating clearly erroneous standard for factual findings)
In re S.C., 168 W.Va. 366, 284 S.E.2d 867 (W.Va. 1981) (mode of proof not prescribed for meeting clear-and-convincing burden)
In re Timber M., 231 W.Va. 44, 743 S.E.2d 352 (W.Va. 2013) (failure to acknowledge abuse/neglect can make improvement period futile)
In re Charity H., 215 W.Va. 208, 599 S.E.2d 631 (W.Va. 2004) (same principle regarding acknowledgment and treatability)