In Re: J.C., 16-0509

DHHR filed abuse and neglect petition (Dec 2012) alleging mother K.C. failed to obtain medical/educational care for her handicapped child J.C.; child was non‑verbal, not toilet‑trained, and largely homebound.
Circuit court removed J.C. and placed him at the Grafton School (specialized autism care); mother retained visitation.
In March 2014 mother voluntarily relinquished custodial and guardianship rights; court preserved visitation at Grafton.
Mother visited sporadically, caused disruptive visits leading to behavioral setbacks for the child and declined free behavioral‑therapy training offered by the school.
A therapist who worked with J.C. completed foster parent training, sought adoption, and the guardian moved to modify disposition to place the child with that therapist.
Mother, represented by counsel, twice sought continuances (car trouble); court denied a final continuance in April 2016, held the modification hearing in her absence, and on May 3, 2016 terminated her parental rights and allowed post‑termination visitation at caregivers’ discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of continuance was erroneous	Mother: car trouble prevented her attendance; denial deprived her of fair process	DHHR/guardian: mother had counsel; continuance is discretionary and prior delays existed	Denial not an abuse of discretion; presence would not have changed outcome
Whether notice was sufficient that modification could terminate parental rights	Mother: lacked sufficient notice that modification could result in termination	Guardian/DHHR: statutory framework and guardian’s motion put mother on notice that disposition could change, including permanent placement	Notice was sufficient under W. Va. Code §49‑4‑604(a); no error

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (standard of review and deference to circuit court on continuance and factual findings)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (reiterating standard that circuit court findings in bench trials are reviewed for clear error)