In Re: N.C., 16-1140

In May 2016 DHHR investigated after a report that mother J.C. hit her 15‑year‑old son N.C. with her purse while intoxicated and that drugs (needles and pills) were found in the home; the home lacked electricity and running water.
Mother admitted a history of substance abuse and intravenous methamphetamine use while the child was present.
DHHR filed an abuse and neglect petition and provided services: random drug screens, supervised visitation, parenting and adult life‑skills classes.
Mother failed approximately nine drug tests, missed multiple appointments, and refused parenting and life‑skills classes; psychological evaluation indicated she blamed others and saw little need to change.
The circuit court adjudicated mother as an abusing parent and, after a dispositional hearing, terminated her parental rights by order entered November 15, 2016. Mother appealed solely arguing the court erred by denying an improvement period.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of a post‑adjudicatory improvement period was erroneous	J.C.: court should have granted an improvement period	DHHR / circuit court: J.C. did not move in writing and failed to show she was likely to fully participate	Denial affirmed — no written motion, and record showed mother unlikely to participate (multiple failed drug tests, refusal of services, lack of insight)
Whether conditions of abuse/neglect could be substantially corrected in the near future	J.C.: (implied) conditions could be corrected with services	DHHR / circuit court: no reasonable likelihood given non‑compliance with case plan and ongoing substance abuse	Termination affirmed — statutory finding that conditions could not be substantially corrected and termination was necessary for child’s welfare

In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (standard of review and permanency timing)
In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (findings of fact in abuse and neglect cases reviewed for clear error)
In re M.M., 236 W.Va. 108, 778 S.E.2d 338 (2015) (court has discretion to grant or deny improvement periods)
In re Katie S., 198 W.Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (1996) (discretion to grant improvement period within statutory requirements)
In re Charity H., 215 W.Va. 208, 599 S.E.2d 631 (2004) (parent must show by clear and convincing evidence likelihood of full participation in improvement period)
In re Timber M., 231 W.Va. 44, 743 S.E.2d 352 (2013) (failure to acknowledge problem makes improvement period futile)
State v. Michael M., 202 W.Va. 350, 504 S.E.2d 177 (1998) (priority to secure an adoptive home when determining permanent placement)
James M. v. Maynard, 185 W.Va. 648, 408 S.E.2d 400 (1991) (guardian ad litem’s role continues until permanent placement)