In Re: L.W., K.W., and R.P., 16-1068

DHHR filed abuse-and-neglect petitions in March 2016 alleging the father (T.W.) failed to protect two children from the mother’s prenatal and household drug use and that the father’s own substance abuse affected his parenting and led to another child’s abandonment.
In May 2016 the father stipulated at adjudication that his substance abuse impaired his parenting, he failed to protect the children from drug use in the home, and he concealed information about R.P.; the court adjudicated him an abusing parent.
The father moved for a post-adjudicatory improvement period; an MDT recommended granting one conditioned on inpatient rehab and random drug screens before visitation.
During the case the father had roughly sixteen positive drug tests (amphetamines, methamphetamine, buprenorphine, benzodiazepines) and about twenty-five missed screens; he did not enroll in inpatient rehab and admitted recent methamphetamine use days before disposition.
At the August 2016 dispositional hearing the DHHR sought termination; the court found no reasonable likelihood the father could substantially correct the conditions, denied the improvement period, and terminated his parental rights (order entered October 12, 2016).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the circuit court erred in denying a post-adjudicatory improvement period	Father argued he showed likelihood of full participation by acknowledging his substance abuse and engaging in some supports	DHHR and circuit court relied on extensive history of positive and missed drug screens, failure to enroll in inpatient treatment, and recent drug use	Court affirmed denial: father failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence he was likely to fully participate

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (W.Va. 1996) (standard for review of circuit-court factual findings in bench trials)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (W.Va. 2011) (restating standard of review for abuse-and-neglect proceedings)
In re M.M., 236 W.Va. 108, 778 S.E.2d 338 (W.Va. 2015) (circuit court has discretion to grant or deny improvement periods)
In re Katie S., 198 W.Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (W.Va. 1996) (discretionary nature of improvement periods within statutory requirements)
In re Charity H., 215 W.Va. 208, 599 S.E.2d 631 (W.Va. 2004) (parent must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence likelihood of full participation in improvement period)