In Re: J.S. and K.C., 17-0331 & 17-0340

DHHR filed abuse and neglect petitions in Mar 2016 alleging unsafe housing, inadequate food, interior/exterior garbage, parents cooking on a gas grill indoors, children sleeping on a mattress amid clutter, and parents' long-term controlled-substance abuse and domestic violence in the children’s presence.
Petitioners (B.C. and D.S.) were adjudicated as abusing parents in May 2016 and were granted post-adjudicatory improvement periods.
DHHR obtained placements and transportation for in-patient substance-abuse treatment; petitioners refused to stay or complete treatment and previously had a similar history in an earlier proceeding.
After being given another chance to comply, petitioners were arrested for forgery and uttering and an off-duty deputy observed a domestic altercation during which father threatened mother.
The circuit court revoked improvement periods, found no reasonable likelihood the parents could substantially correct conditions (statutory §49-4-604(a)(6)), and terminated parental rights by order entered Oct 24, 2016.
Petitioners moved to reopen disposition claiming witnesses recanted and new evidence; the circuit court denied the motion and this appeal followed.

Issue	Petitioner’s Argument	DHHR / Respondent’s Argument	Held
Whether termination of parental rights was erroneous	Petitioners: termination improperly based on arrests and unproduced/recanted witness statements; DHHR failed to disclose new evidence	DHHR: termination based on parents’ continued refusal to complete substance-abuse treatment, domestic-violence concerns, and need to protect children	Court: Affirmed termination; record supports finding of no reasonable likelihood of correction due to failure to complete treatment
Whether circuit court erred by denying motion to reopen disposition	Petitioners: new evidence (witness recantations) warranted reopening	DHHR: petitioners showed no material change in circumstances; no completion of treatment or other rehabilitative steps	Court: Denial proper; petitioners failed to show material change by clear and convincing evidence; reopening would disrupt children’s permanency

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (standard of review and deference to circuit court fact findings in bench trials)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (reiterating standard for review of abuse and neglect findings)
In re Timber M., 231 W.Va. 44, 743 S.E.2d 352 (2013) (parental failure to acknowledge problem renders rehabilitation untreatable)
In re Charity H., 215 W.Va. 208, 599 S.E.2d 631 (2004) (acknowledgement of abuse/neglect as prerequisite to remediation)