In Re: I.W., 17-0166

DHHR filed abuse and neglect petition in Oct 2015 alleging the child was exposed to petitioner C.W.'s abuse of sleeping medication, poor hygiene, hunger, and neglectful behavior, plus petitioner’s criminal charges and CPS admissions of prescription drug abuse.
Dec 2015 adjudicatory hearing: petitioner stipulated to abuse due to substance use; circuit court granted a post-adjudicatory improvement period with conditions (drug testing, treatment, counseling, parenting/life skills, etc.).
May–July 2016: petitioner entered detox, left against medical advice, and later received an extension of the improvement period upon entering a treatment program; she joined the Mother’s Program but was discharged for noncompliance.
Dec 2016 dispositional hearing: petitioner sought an additional improvement period; DHHR presented evidence of noncompliance (missed drug screens, missed counseling, failed inpatient treatment) and lack of visits with the child.
Petitioner had minimal compliance, including sporadic parenting education and no visits between July and Oct 2016, which affected the child negatively; the circuit court denied the improvement period and terminated parental rights.
Petitioner's parental rights were terminated; the child is in the care of paternal grandparents with a goal of adoption; the court’s decision was affirmed in a memorandum decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the disposition denial of an additional improvement period was error.	C.W. argues she showed progress warranting another improvement period.	DHHR argues no substantial change in circumstances and noncompliance precludes another improvement period.	No error; no substantial change or likelihood of participation.
Whether termination of parental rights was supported by no reasonable likelihood of substantial correction.	C.W. contends conditions could be corrected and rights should not terminate.	DHHR argues failure to comply showed no reasonable likelihood of correction, warranting termination.	Termination affirmed; no reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected.
Whether the circuit court applied the correct standard of review and factual findings were not clearly erroneous.	C.W. contests the court’s factual findings.	DHHR relies on the circuit court’s findings as supported by the record.	Standard of review applied correctly; findings not clearly erroneous.

In re Tiffany Marie S., 196 S.E.2d 177 (W. Va. 1996) (W. Va. 1996) (clear-error standard for abuse/neglect findings)
In re Cecil T., 717 S.E.2d 873 (W. Va. 2011) (W. Va. 2011) (standard of review for circuit court findings in abuse/neglect cases)
In re R.J.M., 266 S.E.2d 114 (W. Va. 1980) (W. Va. 1980) (no reasonable likelihood of substantial correction permits termination)
In re Kristin Y., 712 S.E.2d 55 (W. Va. 2011) (W. Va. 2011) (termination when conditions cannot be substantially corrected)