In re D.A., 24-489

C.A. (petitioner mother) had her parental rights to her child, D.A., terminated by the Circuit Court of Randolph County, West Virginia.
The original child abuse and neglect petition alleged erratic behavior, inability to provide housing, mismanagement of benefits, and substance abuse by the mother.
The petitioner admitted to the allegations and was adjudicated as having abused and neglected the child, but requested an improvement period to demonstrate compliance.
Despite being given a chance to demonstrate compliance, the petitioner continued to test positive for methamphetamine, missed multiple drug screens, and failed to acknowledge her substance abuse problem.
At the dispositional hearing, the court found the petitioner was unlikely to improve due to continued denial and noncompliance, and terminated her parental rights; the permanency plan for D.A. is adoption.
Petitioner appealed, arguing that termination should not have occurred without first being granted an improvement period.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was denial of an improvement period error?	Mother argued she should have been granted an improvement period before termination.	DHS and guardian argued she was unlikely to participate or improve due to ongoing substance abuse denial and noncompliance.	No error; court had discretion to deny due to likelihood of noncompliance.
Was termination of parental rights proper?	Mother argued that termination was premature and that she could correct conditions.	DHS and guardian asserted there was no reasonable likelihood for improvement, and termination was in the child’s best interest.	Termination was proper; statutory and evidentiary requirements met.

In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (court reviews findings of fact for clear error and law de novo in abuse and neglect proceedings)
In re Timber M., 231 W. Va. 44, 743 S.E.2d 352 (failure to acknowledge problems renders improvement periods futile)
In re Tonjia M., 212 W. Va. 443, 573 S.E.2d 354 (circuit courts have discretion to deny improvement period if no improvement is likely)
In re Kristin Y., 227 W. Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (termination can be ordered without less restrictive alternatives upon finding no reasonable likelihood of correction)
In re Charity H., 215 W. Va. 208, 599 S.E.2d 631 (failure to acknowledge the problem makes it untreatable)