In re D.V., M.V., and L.V., 21-0030

Background

Petitioner S.V. was adjudicated an abusing parent after stipulating to allegations that she abused/neglected her children and exploited a minor (H.C.) to obtain drugs; DHHR filed the petition in Dec. 2019 and amended it after S.V. gave birth to drug‑exposed infant D.V. who was left at the hospital.
Records and H.C.’s text messages showed S.V. threatened H.C., solicited illicit drugs, and offered marijuana in exchange for compliance and supplies for younger children.
S.V. had a prior involuntary termination of parental rights in Arizona (2010) and a prior WV CPS case in 2018 with random drug screens, counseling, and parenting services for substance abuse.
S.V. entered long‑term inpatient drug treatment only in October 2020 (after brief detox in early October); she had long‑term Suboxone treatment for years but admitted continued illicit drug use and missed many drug screens.
The Monroe County circuit court denied S.V.’s requests for a post‑adjudicatory improvement period, found no reasonable likelihood she could correct conditions in the near future, and terminated her parental rights on Dec. 15, 2020. The West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (S.V.)	Defendant's Argument (DHHR / Court)	Held
Whether the court erred by denying a post‑adjudicatory improvement period	S.V. argued she was likely to participate fully because she was in Suboxone treatment, submitted drug screens, and had started inpatient treatment	DHHR and court relied on S.V.’s history of relapse, prior involuntary termination, missed drug screens, late entry into inpatient treatment, and aggravated‑circumstances relief from reasonable‑efforts requirement	Denial affirmed: court properly exercised discretion given pattern of substance abuse and low likelihood of meaningful participation
Whether termination was improper while S.V. was actively in inpatient treatment at dispositional hearing	S.V. argued active inpatient participation showed reasonable likelihood she could correct conditions	DHHR argued prior failures, delayed treatment only when faced with termination, and lack of credibility warranted termination	Termination affirmed: court found inpatient entry was too recent and likely motivated by pendency of termination; no reasonable likelihood of near‑future correction
Whether DHHR failed to provide reasonable services	S.V. claimed inadequate services impeded reunification	DHHR pointed to prior aggravated‑circumstances relief (prior termination) and that services (drug screens, supervised visitation, referrals) were provided in 2018 and in this case	Rejected: prior termination allowed DHHR reduced obligations; record showed services/referrals were offered
Whether children were entitled to more time given their age and placement duration	S.V. urged additional time to continue treatment	DHHR/court emphasized children (all under 3) needed stability and that courts need not pursue speculative parental improvement	Rejected: court may terminate without exhausting speculative possibilities when child welfare and need for permanency require prompt action

Key Cases Cited

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W. Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (W. Va. 1996) (standard of review and deference to circuit court fact findings in abuse/neglect cases)
In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (W. Va. 2011) (reiteration of appellate review standard for bench‑tried abuse and neglect matters)
In re M.M., 236 W. Va. 108, 778 S.E.2d 338 (W. Va. 2015) (circuit court discretion to grant improvement periods)
In re Tonjia M., 212 W. Va. 443, 573 S.E.2d 354 (W. Va. 2002) (circuit court may refuse improvement period when no improvement likely)
Michael D.C. v. Wanda L.C., 201 W. Va. 381, 497 S.E.2d 531 (W. Va. 1997) (appellate courts defer to trial courts on witness credibility)
In re R.J.M., 164 W. Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (W. Va. 1980) (courts need not pursue speculative parental improvement where child welfare and need for permanency outweigh delay)