In Re: M.A., A.A.-1, and A.A.-2, 17-0394

DHHR filed abuse-and-neglect petitions after teenage A.A.-1 and an underage friend disclosed that the parents provided alcohol and played a sexually suggestive game; additional allegations included medical neglect of A.A.-2 (cleft palate) and parental incarceration.
At adjudication, multiple witnesses (including A.A.-1’s friend and an investigating officer) consistently reported the abuse; A.A.-1 later recanted at the hearing, but the circuit court found her recantation not credible based on texts and the friend’s testimony.
Neither parent testified or presented evidence at adjudication; the circuit court adjudicated petitioner (mother S.A.) an abusing parent based principally on permitting/participating in alcohol consumption with minors and inappropriate conduct with sexual overtones.
At dispositional hearing petitioner requested a post-adjudicatory improvement period; the court denied it, finding she failed to acknowledge the abuse and was unlikely to fully participate in services.
The circuit court found no reasonable likelihood the conditions could be corrected and terminated petitioner’s parental rights to M.A. and A.A.-2; A.A.-1 reached majority and was dismissed from the proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (S.A.)	Defendant's Argument (DHHR / Guardian / Court)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for adjudication as abusing parent	Evidence insufficient; A.A.-1 recanted, so allegations not proved	Witnesses corroborated initial disclosures; recantation was not credible; petitioner permitted/consumed alcohol with minors	Adjudication affirmed: clear-and-convincing evidence supported abuse finding
Whether petitioner engaged in sexual abuse (specific acts alleged)	DHHR failed to prove specific sexual acts; insufficient detail to adjudicate on that basis	Court clarified adjudication was based on permitting alcohol and inappropriate sexualized conduct, not specific sexual acts	Court did not need to find specific sexual acts; conduct proven was sufficient for adjudication
Entitlement to post-adjudicatory improvement period	Petitioner complied with some services, had negative drug screens, so likely to participate in improvement period	Petitioner failed to acknowledge abuse/parenting deficiencies, making improvement period futile	Denial affirmed: failure to acknowledge problem precludes granting improvement period
Whether conditions could be substantially corrected (necessity of termination)	Petitioner argued potential for compliance if given services	Court found no reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected due to lack of acknowledgment and inability to follow a case plan	Termination of parental rights affirmed as necessary for children’s welfare

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (W.Va. 1996) (standard of review for circuit-court factual findings in abuse/neglect cases)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (W.Va. 2011) (same standard of review cited)
In re Joseph A., 199 W.Va. 438, 485 S.E.2d 176 (W.Va. 1997) (burden of proof at adjudication—clear and convincing evidence; manner of proof not prescribed)
Michael D.C. v. Wanda L.C., 201 W.Va. 381, 497 S.E.2d 531 (W.Va. 1997) (appellate courts defer to trial court credibility determinations)
In re Timber M., 231 W.Va. 44, 743 S.E.2d 352 (W.Va. 2013) (parent must acknowledge problem before improvement period can be effective)
In re Charity H., 215 W.Va. 208, 599 S.E.2d 631 (W.Va. 2004) (failure to acknowledge abuse renders improvement period futile)