In Re: J.G. and A.G., 17-0438

In Aug. 2016 the guardian filed an abuse-and-neglect petition alleging petitioner-mother’s untreated mental illness and substance abuse rendered her unable to safely parent J.G. (15) and A.G. (14). Petitioner waived the preliminary hearing and was adjudicated an abusing parent in Sept. 2016.
The circuit court granted petitioner a post-adjudicatory improvement period in Oct. 2016. The court and DHHR later observed petitioner appeared under the influence at proceedings and tested positive for methamphetamine and marijuana.
During the improvement period petitioner completed only 3 of 25 requested drug screens, refused most services, failed to complete a substance-abuse assessment, attended counseling but refused prescribed medication, and visited with A.G. only twice (due to failed/refused drug screens).
The guardian moved to terminate the improvement period in Jan. 2017; the court terminated it in Feb. 2017 for noncompliance. At the March 2017 dispositional hearing the DHHR and guardian moved to terminate parental rights; petitioner moved to reinstate the improvement period.
The circuit court denied reinstatement and terminated petitioner’s custodial rights in an Apr. 6, 2017 dispositional order. The children expressed that they did not want termination, but the court proceeded. J.G. is in foster care; A.G. was in residential treatment with plans for foster placement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Petitioner)	Defendant's Argument (DHHR/Guardian/Court)	Held
Whether the court erred in terminating petitioner’s post-adjudicatory improvement period	Petitioner: she substantially complied and was making progress, so the improvement period should remain	DHHR/guardian: petitioner largely failed to participate in required drug screens, assessments, treatment, and services	Court: affirmed termination—petitioner failed to fully participate or make necessary progress
Whether the court erred in terminating petitioner’s custodial (parental) rights	Petitioner: termination was improper because she had substantially complied with the improvement period	DHHR/guardian: no reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected—petitioner did not follow case plan, refused treatment/medication, and failed testing	Court: affirmed termination—no reasonable likelihood conditions of abuse/neglect could be corrected and termination was in children’s welfare
Whether the court complied with permanency obligations	Petitioner: (implicit) permanency rules should be considered before termination	DHHR/guardian/court: emphasized need to secure permanent placement and follow Rules 39(b) and 43	Court: reminded trial court of duty to conduct tri-monthly permanency reviews and secure permanent placement within 12 months; affirmed need to prioritize adoptive placement when appropriate

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (standard of review for bench findings in abuse-and-neglect cases)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (restating standard of review and appellate deference to circuit court findings)
In re Lacey P., 189 W.Va. 580, 433 S.E.2d 518 (1993) (circuit court discretion to terminate improvement periods if parent not making necessary progress)
State v. Michael M., 202 W.Va. 350, 504 S.E.2d 177 (1998) (court must give priority to securing a suitable adoptive home when determining permanent placement)
James M. v. Maynard, 185 W.Va. 648, 408 S.E.2d 400 (1991) (guardian ad litem’s duty continues until child placed in permanent home)