In re D.S., 21-0798

In March 2019 DHHR filed an abuse-and-neglect petition after D.S. (then 14) reported the mother’s drug use (methamphetamine observed), theft, and repeated domestic-violence incidents in the home; mother was arrested and a DVPO was obtained on the child’s behalf.
Mother stipulated at adjudication that she abused nonprescribed medications that impaired her parenting; the child’s father later died and was dismissed from the case.
Over the case period DHHR/ CPS set up services (parenting, adult life skills, drug screens), but CPS testimony and the guardian reported that mother failed to respond to repeated contact attempts, missed MDT meetings and hearings, and otherwise did not engage.
The guardian reported the child wanted no contact with mother and wished to be adopted by his foster family; mother allegedly had third parties harass the child when he retrieved belongings.
The circuit court found mother abandoned the child, that there was no reasonable likelihood she could correct the conditions in the near future, and terminated her parental rights.
Mother appealed, arguing DHHR did not make reasonable reunification efforts (no improvement period) and the court should have used a less-restrictive dispositional alternative; the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DHHR made reasonable efforts to reunify	Mother: DHHR failed to make reasonable efforts because she was never granted an improvement period and services were not meaningfully provided	DHHR/CPS: Services were offered and initiated; mother failed to respond or engage despite multiple contact attempts	Court: DHHR made reasonable efforts; mother’s lack of engagement and failure to rebut CPS testimony supported the finding
Whether denial/non‑granting of an improvement period was error	Mother: Absence of an improvement period undermines reunification efforts and the dispositional findings	DHHR: A parent is not entitled to an improvement period as of right; parent must show likelihood of participating	Court: Denial/absence of improvement period is not reversible error; mother did not demonstrate she would fully participate and offered no motion or evidence to support entitlement
Whether termination (rather than a less‑restrictive alternative) was appropriate	Mother: Case warranted more time/services; termination was too drastic given claimed lack of services	DHHR/guardian: Mother abandoned the case, child refused contact, services were ignored, and termination served the child’s welfare	Court: Termination proper where no reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected and it was in child’s best interests; less‑restrictive alternatives not required

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W. Va. 223 (1996) (standard of review for circuit-court findings in bench-tried abuse/neglect cases)
In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89 (2011) (restating standard of review and appellate deference to circuit-court factual findings)
In re Emily, 208 W. Va. 325 (2000) (parent is not unconditionally entitled to an improvement period)
In re Charity H., 215 W. Va. 208 (2004) (parent bears burden to show likelihood of participating in an improvement period)
In re R.J.M., 164 W. Va. 496 (1980) (termination may be used without intervening less restrictive alternatives when no reasonable likelihood of correction exists)
In re Kristin Y., 227 W. Va. 558 (2011) (affirming termination where statutory factors indicating improbability of correction are met)