In re G.G., 21-0774

DHHR filed abuse and neglect proceedings beginning May 2019 after concerns about filthy home, inadequate care, and suspected drug activity; petitioner admitted methamphetamine use and stipulated to allegations for the older children.
Petitioner was granted post-adjudicatory improvement periods requiring drug screens, parenting/adult-life classes, inpatient rehab, supervised visits, stable housing, and employment but repeatedly failed to comply (missed MDTs/hearings, numerous missed drug screens, positive tests).
In June 2020 petitioner tested positive for heroin at G.G.’s birth and admitted using heroin during pregnancy; she voluntarily left an inpatient rehab program days after admission.
The court terminated petitioner’s parental rights to the two older children in April 2021; that termination was affirmed on appeal.
Petitioner received a post-adjudicatory improvement period for G.G. but failed to provide court-ordered proof of hospitalization for an alleged ATV accident, did not drug-screen since October 2020, and did not meaningfully engage with offered services.
The circuit court found no reasonable likelihood the conditions could be corrected in the near future and terminated petitioner’s parental rights to G.G. on September 20, 2021; this Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether termination was improper because petitioner was not afforded a meaningful improvement period	Petitioner: DHHR provided only minimal assistance (lists, phone number); with more time and assistance she could enroll in treatment	DHHR: Petitioner was repeatedly noncompliant, failed to initiate/complete required services, and refused/abandoned programs	Court: Termination affirmed—petitioner bore responsibility to initiate/complete improvement period; no reasonable likelihood of correction
Whether DHHR’s assistance (or lack thereof) rendered the improvement period meaningless	Petitioner: DHHR’s “hands-off” approach prevented enrollment in treatment	DHHR: Offered lists, transportation, and opportunities; petitioner declined, disappeared, and blamed others	Court: Assistance was adequate; petitioner’s conduct—not DHHR—caused noncompletion
Whether less drastic alternatives were required before termination	Petitioner: Needed more time to secure rehab placements	DHHR/guardian: Continued substance use and nonparticipation endangered the child; termination necessary for child’s welfare	Court: Courts need not pursue speculative possibilities when child’s welfare threatened; termination appropriate

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W. Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (standard of review for bench-tried abuse and neglect findings and credibility determinations)
Michael D.C. v. Wanda L.C., 201 W. Va. 381, 497 S.E.2d 531 (1997) (appellate courts defer to trial court credibility findings)
In re R.J.M., 164 W. Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (1980) (termination may be employed without less restrictive alternatives when no reasonable likelihood conditions can be corrected)
In re Kristin Y., 227 W. Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (2011) (termination standard under West Virginia Code § 49-4-604)
In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (framework for reviewing circuit court conclusions of law and factual findings in abuse and neglect cases)