In Re: C.W., R.W., N.W., and H.W., 17-0710

Background

DHHR filed abuse-and-neglect proceedings (Aug 2016) after parents became homeless, left children with unsafe persons, and had substance-abuse concerns.\
Initial adjudication (Nov 2016) found parents neglected children for lack of shelter/food/clothing; later amended petition (Feb 2017) added substance-abuse allegations after a child’s disclosure.\
At dispositional hearing (June 2017), evidence showed petitioner evaded drug screens, tested positive for methamphetamine and marijuana, and was dishonest with providers; parents had a prior 2009 CPS history.\
Service providers and foster parents testified children exhibited problematic behaviors following visits with parents. Parents denied or failed to acknowledge substance-abuse/parenting problems and did not complete services over years.\
Circuit court denied post-adjudicatory improvement periods, terminated parental rights, and denied post-termination visitation as contrary to the children’s best interests. Petitioner appealed only the denial of an improvement period and post-termination visitation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (R.W.)	Defendant's Argument (DHHR / Guardian)	Held
Whether court erred in denying a post-adjudicatory improvement period	R.W. argued testimony showed strong bond, he was employed, seeking housing assistance, and willing to participate, so he would complete an improvement period	DHHR/guardian pointed to evaded/failed drug screens, positive tests, dishonesty, inconsistent visitation, prior CPS history, and lack of acknowledgement of problems	Denial affirmed: circuit court did not abuse discretion; R.W. failed to show by clear and convincing evidence likelihood of full participation or acknowledgment of problems
Whether court erred in denying post-termination visitation	R.W. argued a loving bond existed and no evidence showed supervised visits would be detrimental	DHHR/guardian presented testimony that visits precipitated serious behavioral issues in children (regression, aggression, sexualized behaviors)	Denial affirmed: visitation would be detrimental; not in children’s best interests
Whether circuit court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous	R.W. contended evidence favored his fitness and potential to remediate	DHHR/guardian relied on consistent record evidence supporting findings (drug positives, evasion, inconsistent cooperation, prior history)	Affirmed: appellate court defers to plausible circuit-court findings absent clear error
Whether petitioner’s appellate brief preserved challenge to termination	R.W. listed termination in assignment of error but provided no argument or citations on that point	DHHR/guardian noted inadequate briefing per appellate rules	Court declined to address the termination challenge due to inadequate briefing; only addressed improvement-period claim

Key Cases Cited

In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (W.Va. 2011) (standard of review for abuse and neglect bench findings)\
In re Timber M., 231 W.Va. 44, 743 S.E.2d 352 (W.Va. 2013) (parent must acknowledge problem before improvement period can be effective)\
In re Charity H., 215 W.Va. 208, 599 S.E.2d 631 (W.Va. 2004) (clear-and-convincing burden to show likely full participation in improvement period)\
In re M.M., 236 W.Va. 108, 778 S.E.2d 338 (W.Va. 2015) (circuit court discretion to grant or deny improvement periods)\
In re Katie S., 198 W.Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (W.Va. 1996) (discretionary nature of improvement periods under statutory requirements)\
In re Christina L., 194 W.Va. 446, 460 S.E.2d 692 (W.Va. 1995) (factors for considering post-termination visitation; must not harm child)\
In re Daniel D., 211 W.Va. 79, 562 S.E.2d 147 (W.Va. 2002) (affirming guidance that visitation after termination requires showing it is in the child’s best interest)\
In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (W.Va. 1996) (articulating appellate standard of review for circuit-court findings in abuse-and-neglect cases)