In Re: J.H. and L.M., 17-0196

DHHR filed abuse-and-neglect petitions in Sept. 2016 after infant J.H. tested positive at birth for multiple controlled substances; allegations included domestic violence between mother (K.M.) and the father.
Children were removed and placed with maternal grandmother; K.M. waived preliminary hearing and was ordered to submit to drug screens and participate in services (inpatient/outpatient rehab, parenting and life-skills classes, domestic-violence counseling, bus passes).
K.M. was granted a preadjudicatory improvement period but drug screens during the proceedings showed positives for methamphetamine, oxycodone, and benzoates; she admitted using nonprescribed drugs and failing to complete pre-petition safety plans.
At dispositional hearing, evidence showed sporadic participation in services, failure to enter rehab, missed drug screens, continued illicit drug use while pregnant, and lack of substantial improvement.
Circuit court found K.M. unwilling or unable to adequately parent, denied an extension of the improvement period, and terminated her parental rights to J.H. and L.M.; placements: J.H. with maternal grandmother (adoption goal), L.M. with non-abusing father.

Issue	Petitioner's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether circuit court erred by denying extension of preadjudicatory improvement period	K.M.: DHHR stopped offering services in Dec. 2016 and she lacked adequate time (two months) to show compliance, so extension was warranted	DHHR/Court: K.M. failed to substantially comply with required terms (classes, rehab attempts, drug screens); extension requires substantial compliance	Court affirmed denial: K.M. did not substantially comply and was unlikely to correct conditions
Whether DHHR failed to provide adequate services during the proceeding	K.M.: DHHR curtailed services in Dec. 2016 and thus did not adequately attempt to preserve the family	DHHR/Court: DHHR offered ordered services; parents are responsible for initiating/completing improvement-period tasks; K.M. either did not participate or participated sporadically	Court affirmed that DHHR provided adequate services as ordered; K.M.’s noncompliance was dispositive

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (W.Va. 1996) (standard of review for circuit-court findings in bench trials)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (W.Va. 2011) (applying appellate review standards to abuse-and-neglect findings)