In Re: D.H., D.R., and A.R., 17-0627

DHHR filed abuse-and-neglect petitions alleging Mother (J.R.) knowingly exposed three children to sexual abuse by her live-in boyfriend (B.P.), continued to live with him after learning of the abuse, was frequently intoxicated, failed to supervise, and exposed children to domestic violence. An amended petition added alleged sexual abuse by a neighbor to one child (D.H.).
At adjudication, D.H., who functions cognitively below her age, testified in camera that B.P. fondled her and repeatedly showed her pornography; a pornographic DVD from the home was identified by D.H. and recovered by law enforcement.
Mother acknowledged the boyfriend lived in the home and admitted awareness of the DVD but repeatedly denied D.H.’s disclosures, called D.H. a liar, and continued the relationship, stating she believed B.P. was innocent.
The circuit court adjudicated Mother an abusing parent and found clear and convincing evidence that B.P. sexually abused D.H.; Mother later moved for a post-adjudicatory improvement period.
At disposition, the court denied Mother’s motion for an improvement period, finding she failed to acknowledge the abuse and thus was unlikely to comply with an improvement plan; the court terminated Mother’s parental rights as necessary for the children’s welfare.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Mother should have been granted a post-adjudicatory improvement period	Mother argued D.H. is prone to fabricate, so Mother’s denial of the allegations did not prove inability to benefit from an improvement period	DHHR/guardian argued Mother’s continued relationship with accused abuser and refusal to acknowledge abuse showed she was unlikely to participate or benefit from an improvement period	Denial affirmed: Mother failed to show by clear and convincing evidence she was likely to fully participate; circuit court’s discretion upheld
Whether termination of parental rights was an inappropriate, overly restrictive disposition	Mother argued a less-restrictive alternative should have been used instead of termination	DHHR/guardian argued no reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected given Mother’s refusal to acknowledge abuse; termination necessary for children’s welfare	Termination affirmed: court found no reasonable likelihood of correction and that termination was necessary for children’s health, safety, and welfare

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223 (1996) (standard of review for circuit court findings in non-jury abuse/neglect cases)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89 (2011) (standard of review and requirement to make findings of fact and conclusions of law)
In re M.M., 236 W.Va. 108 (2015) (circuit court discretion to grant or deny improvement periods)
In re Katie S., 198 W.Va. 79 (1996) (court discretion on improvement periods)
In re Timber M., 231 W.Va. 44 (2012) (parental acknowledgment of abuse is prerequisite to effective remediation)
State v. Michael M., 202 W.Va. 350 (1998) (priority to secure suitable adoptive home when determining permanent placement)
James M. v. Maynard, 185 W.Va. 648 (1991) (guardian ad litem role continues until child placed in a permanent home)