In Re: I.T. and S.T., 16-0499

DHHR filed an abuse and neglect petition after infant S.T. presented with severe bruising inside her ears; pediatric clinicians concluded the bruising was caused by an outside force. Petitioner J.T. admitted causing the bruising but claimed it was accidental.
At adjudication the court found petitioner had ‘‘severely bruised’’ S.T. by grabbing her head and squeezing her ears; the court adjudicated the children abused/neglected and ordered evaluations and services.
Petitioner sought a post-adjudicatory improvement period; the court deferred decision pending a psychological evaluation.
At dispositional hearing psychologist opined petitioner lacked insight, deflected responsibility, manifested controlling/domestic-violence attitudes, and posed a danger to the children; medical testimony and mother’s observations corroborated nonaccidental injury and past unexplained bruising.
Petitioner moved to continue the dispositional hearing to subpoena service providers and later requested a post-dispositional improvement period; the court denied continuation and both improvement-period motions and terminated petitioner’s parental rights.
Petitioner appealed, arguing (1) ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to subpoena witnesses, (2) denial of continuance, (3) denial of an improvement period, and (4) that termination was an abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Petitioner’s Argument	State/Court’s Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel failed to serve subpoenas on favorable witnesses, prejudicing outcome	No recognition of IAC in WV A&N context; record shows anticipated testimony would not have changed result	Denied; Court declines to find IAC and finds no prejudice
Motion to continue dispositional hearing	Continuance needed so service providers could testify in petitioner’s favor	Circuit court knew identities and that testimony would be favorable; medical and psychological evidence was overwhelming	Denied; no abuse of discretion in refusing continuance
Denial of improvement period	Petitioner had admitted causing injury and completed services, so should receive improvement period	Psychological evaluation showed lack of responsibility, low likelihood of change; improvement would be futile and unsafe for children	Denied; court did not abuse discretion in finding petitioner unlikely to benefit from improvement period
Termination of parental rights	Termination was excessive given claimed accidental nature and service participation	Serious physical injury to children and no reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected; termination required for children’s welfare	Affirmed; statutory grounds for termination satisfied

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (W.Va. 1996) (standard of review and discretion on continuances in A&N proceedings)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (W.Va. 2011) (procedural standards for findings of fact in A&N cases)
State v. Miller, 194 W.Va. 3, 459 S.E.2d 114 (W.Va. 1995) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
In re Timber M., 231 W.Va. 44, 743 S.E.2d 352 (W.Va. 2013) (failure to acknowledge abuse undermines utility of improvement period)
In re: Charity H., 215 W.Va. 208, 599 S.E.2d 631 (W.Va. 2004) (acknowledgment of problem is prerequisite to meaningful improvement period)