In Re: C.S., 17-0333

DHHR filed an abuse and neglect petition (May 2016) alleging petitioner-father M.S. had chronic drug use that impaired his parenting and an extensive drug-related criminal history (including pending methamphetamine and heroin charges and firearms offenses).
In January 2017 petitioner stipulated that his drug use impaired his ability to parent.
DHHR moved to terminate parental rights in February 2017 because petitioner continued using drugs and failed to engage in services.
At the February 2017 dispositional hearing petitioner requested a post-adjudicatory improvement period; the caseworker testified petitioner missed most contacts, completed only 2 of 8 drug screens (both positive), failed to engage in services, and had not visited the child.
Petitioner admitted ongoing drug use, including use four days before the dispositional hearing. The circuit court denied an improvement period, found no reasonable likelihood of remediation, and ordered termination of parental rights (March 8, 2017).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether petitioner should have received a post-adjudicatory improvement period	M.S. said he was honest about addiction and wished to obtain treatment and therefore should be given an improvement period	DHHR and circuit court argued M.S. was unlikely to comply given continued drug use, missed contacts, few drug screens, and positive results	Denial affirmed — petitioner failed to show by clear and convincing evidence likelihood of substantial compliance with improvement-period terms
Whether terminating parental rights without first granting an improvement period was proper	M.S. argued there was a reasonable likelihood he could correct conditions if given treatment and an improvement period	DHHR argued conditions could not be remedied in the near future because petitioner did not follow through with services, continued drug use, criminal history, and did not visit the child	Termination affirmed — court found no reasonable likelihood conditions could be substantially corrected and termination was in child’s best interest

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (standard of review for circuit court factual findings in abuse and neglect cases)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (restating standard of review)
In re: M.M., 236 W.Va. 108, 778 S.E.2d 338 (2015) (circuit court discretion to grant or deny improvement periods)
In re Katie S., 198 W.Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (1996) (discretion to grant improvement period within statutory requirements)
In re R.J.M., 164 W.Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (1980) (termination may be used without less restrictive alternatives when no reasonable likelihood conditions can be corrected)
In re Kristin Y., 227 W.Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (2011) (termination is proper when parent has not followed through with rehabilitative efforts)