In Re: I.G., 17-0378

Background

DHHR filed an abuse and neglect petition after mother K.P. posted on social media seeking someone to "sign my custody over to" and reported she was physically/mentally unable to care for child; CPS found the child in the home of a registered sex offender (grandmother's household).
Case history: prior 2014-2015 abuse/neglect case in which K.P. was adjudicated for homelessness and failure to provide shelter; she completed a prior improvement period and that case was dismissed in 2015.
Home inspections during the 2016 proceedings found severe disrepair and hazards (collapsing ceiling, leaking roof, exposed wiring, overflowing trash, hole in floor), and reports that K.P.’s boyfriend had shoved soap in the child’s mouth; K.P. had inconsistent contact with service providers.
Court-ordered psychological evaluation diagnosed borderline personality disorder and unspecified depressive disorder; the evaluating psychiatrist testified K.P. was not a good candidate to parent, resisted treatment, and was unlikely to sustain improvement.
Circuit court adjudicated K.P. as an abusing parent, denied her post-adjudicatory improvement period, and at disposition terminated her parental rights; father’s rights were also terminated and the child placed in foster care with adoption plan.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether K.P. was entitled to a post-adjudicatory improvement period	K.P. argued she proved by clear and convincing evidence she would fully participate in an improvement period	DHHR and guardian argued she participated sporadically, resisted treatment, remained in unsafe living conditions, and did not comply with court orders	Court denied improvement period: K.P. failed to show likelihood of substantial compliance given prior sporadic service participation, unsafe home, unemployment, and continued relationship with boyfriend
Whether termination of parental rights was improper because less-restrictive alternatives were not tried	K.P. argued the court should have used less-restrictive alternatives instead of termination	DHHR/guardian argued there was no reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected: prior case unresolved, failure to follow case plan, noncompliance with services	Court affirmed termination: statutory standard met — no reasonable likelihood conditions could be substantially corrected and termination necessary for child’s welfare
Whether evidence supported circuit court’s factual findings (standard of review)	K.P. challenged factual findings and conclusions as erroneous	DHHR/guardian relied on testimony, inspections, psychiatrist, and K.P.’s social media showing noncompliance	Appellate court applied clearly erroneous standard and found circuit court’s factual findings plausible and supported by record; no reversible error

Key Cases Cited

In re Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (standard of review for circuit-court findings in bench trials)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (summary of appellate review principles in abuse/neglect cases)
In re M.M., 236 W.Va. 108, 778 S.E.2d 338 (2015) (circuit court discretion to grant or deny improvement period)
In re Katie S., 198 W.Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (1996) (court discretion regarding improvement periods)
In re R.J.M., 164 W.Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (1980) (termination may be used without less-restrictive alternatives when no reasonable likelihood of correction exists)
In re Kristin Y., 227 W.Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (2011) (statutory framework for termination when conditions cannot be corrected)