In re M.O., 20-0698

Background

DHHR filed an abuse-and-neglect petition (Oct 2018, amended Mar 2019) adding Father for substance abuse and lack of safe housing; Father entered treatment and received a post-adjudicatory improvement period.
Father initially complied with services and was granted a trial reunification with his son, M.O., while DHHR retained legal custody and provided safety/reunification supports.
In late Mar–Apr 2020 Father missed drug screens, admitted to relapsing (marijuana/benzodiazepine), and M.O. was removed from his home on April 13, 2020; Father produced several positive tests through May 7, 2020 and negative tests thereafter.
After removal Father had sporadic contact with DHHR and counsel, attended one MDT, did not pursue visits consistently, and failed to appear at the final dispositional hearing.
The Wood County circuit court terminated Father’s improvement period and parental rights (July 27, 2020), finding a long history of substance abuse, a relapse shortly after reunification, inadequate engagement, and no reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected; Father appealed.
The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding termination was consistent with the child’s best interests; it noted the record suggests DHHR may have failed to provide a statutorily required immediate court hearing after emergency removal but declined to disturb the outcome.

Issues

Issue	Father’s Argument	DHHR / GAL Argument	Held
Did the court err by terminating Father’s improvement period despite substantial compliance?	Father: he substantially complied with terms; DHHR kept case open only to provide services it then failed to provide; relapse due to COVID stress.	DHHR/GAL: Father relapsed soon after reunification, stopped fully participating, had sporadic contact and abandoned visits; termination of improvement period warranted.	Affirmed. Court found improvement-period compliance one factor; relapse, long addiction history, lack of engagement made termination appropriate under best-interests standard.
Did the court err by terminating parental rights despite alleged substantial compliance and lack of reunification services?	Father: termination unfair because reunification services were not provided after trial return and he was complying otherwise.	DHHR/GAL: Services (weekly pre-unification visits, drug screens, access to providers) were provided; parent must initiate/complete terms and failed to engage.	Affirmed. Court held there was no reasonable likelihood of correction in near future and termination served child’s best interests.
Did DHHR improperly effect a de-facto termination by removing M.O. without immediate court notification/hearing under WV statute?	Father: argues DHHR de facto terminated improvement period without judicial oversight.	DHHR: removal discussed with prosecutor; record lacks evidence of court notification/hearing.	Issue not properly preserved; Court observed likely statutory noncompliance (no immediate hearing) but declined to reverse because record otherwise supports termination.

Key Cases Cited

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W. Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (bench fact-findings reviewed for clear error; legal conclusions de novo)
In re Katie S., 198 W. Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (1996) (child’s health and welfare governs over parental rights)
In Interest of Carlita B., 185 W. Va. 613, 408 S.E.2d 365 (1991) (court reviews parent performance at end of improvement period and exercises discretion whether return is justified)
In re B.H., 233 W. Va. 57, 754 S.E.2d 743 (2014) (parental compliance is one factor in dispositional decisions; best interests control)
W. Va. Dep’t of Hum. Serv. v. Peggy F., 184 W. Va. 60, 399 S.E.2d 460 (1990) (improvement period aims at stable family restoration, not mere task completion)
In re Frances J.A.S., 213 W. Va. 636, 584 S.E.2d 492 (2003) (pivotal dispositional question is which outcome aligns with child’s best interests)
State ex rel. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Res. v. Dyer, 242 W. Va. 505, 836 S.E.2d 472 (2019) (discusses aggravated-circumstances exceptions and DHHR obligations)