In re I.W., E.W., and M.W.-1, 21-0018

DHHR filed abuse-and-neglect petition (Sept. 2019) alleging children exposed to methamphetamine use in the home and parental criminality; one child admitted using meth with a friend of the mother.
Amended petition included allegations that a mother’s friend sexually abused one child and that petitioner committed domestic violence against the mother in the children’s presence; witnesses (mother and aunt) corroborated domestic violence and children’s fear.
Petitioner was incarcerated for felony convictions, later stipulated at adjudication to abusing/neglecting the children by failing to protect them during his incarceration, and remained incarcerated for much of the case.
After release petitioner sought a post-adjudicatory improvement period, testified he was employed, drug-screening clean, and had completed classes, but continued to deny any domestic violence allegations.
Circuit court denied the improvement period because petitioner would not acknowledge domestic violence, found no reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected, and terminated petitioner’s parental rights (mother voluntarily relinquished; permanency plans are adoption by relatives).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial of post-adjudicatory improvement period	M.W.-2: stipulation, employment, classes, and clean drug tests show he would fully participate and accept responsibility	DHHR & GAL: petitioner still denies domestic violence and thus would not address core problem	Affirmed — denial proper because petitioner failed to acknowledge domestic violence, making an improvement period futile
Termination without less-restrictive alternative	M.W.-2: court should have used less-restrictive dispositional options before terminating rights	DHHR & GAL: no reasonable likelihood conditions could be substantially corrected given petitioner’s denial	Affirmed — termination permitted where no reasonable likelihood of correction exists
Sufficiency of evidence re domestic violence	M.W.-2: lack of police reports undermines domestic-violence finding	DHHR & GAL: multiple witnesses testified; circuit court credibility determinations control	Affirmed — testimony supported court’s findings; appellate court will not second-guess credibility
Whether stipulation constituted acceptance of responsibility for domestic violence	M.W.-2: his adjudicatory stipulation showed acceptance of responsibility sufficient for improvement period	DHHR & GAL: stipulation related to failure to protect while incarcerated and did not admit perpetrating domestic violence	Affirmed — stipulation insufficient because petitioner continued to deny the core abusive conduct

In re Emily, 208 W. Va. 325, 540 S.E.2d 542 (W. Va. 2000) (parent not unconditionally entitled to improvement period)
In re Kaitlyn P., 225 W. Va. 123, 690 S.E.2d 131 (W. Va. 2010) (purpose of improvement period is behavior modification to correct conditions)
In re Timber M., 231 W. Va. 44, 743 S.E.2d 352 (W. Va. 2013) (failure to acknowledge problem makes improvement period futile)
In re Tonjia M., 212 W. Va. 443, 573 S.E.2d 354 (W. Va. 2002) (circuit court has discretion to deny improvement period)
Michael D.C. v. Wanda L.C., 201 W. Va. 381, 497 S.E.2d 531 (W. Va. 1997) (appellate court will not reassess witness credibility)
In re R.J.M., 164 W. Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (W. Va. 1980) (termination may be used without intervening less-restrictive alternatives when no reasonable likelihood of correction exists)