In re O.T., A.T.-1., J.T., and A.T.-2, 20-1036

Background

DHHR filed neglect/abuse petition (May 2018) alleging J.K.’s ongoing drug use (methamphetamine, buprenorphine, benzodiazepines), failure to supervise, and related hygiene/medical neglect; J.K. stipulated and was adjudicated an abusing parent (July 2018).
Evidence included positive drug tests, admission she asked child O.T. for drug‑free urine to substitute for her own test, forged/ manipulated drug screens, unauthorized contact with the children, and prior CPS involvement with a previously completed improvement period.
Court granted a post‑adjudicatory improvement period (Nov. 2018) but terminated it in June 2019 after relapse and noncompliance (forged screens, dishonesty, missed hearings/visits).
Mother sought a post‑dispositional improvement period; hearings in 2019–2020 produced testimony of intermittent treatment enrollment but additional positive drug tests in Sept.–Oct. 2020 and continued credibility concerns.
Dispositional order (Nov. 30, 2020) terminated mother’s parental rights as contrary to the children’s welfare; mother appealed arguing error in denying a second improvement period and that delay in disposition violated timing rules.
Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed: mother failed to prove likelihood of full participation or a substantial change in circumstances, and she did not demonstrate prejudice from the delayed disposition.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court erred in denying a post‑dispositional improvement period	J.K.: enrolled in treatment, showed changed circumstances and willingness to participate	DHHR/Court: prior improvement period failure, relapse, forged/manipulated drug tests, dishonesty, unauthorized visits — not credible or likely to comply	Denial affirmed — J.K. failed to show substantial change or likelihood of full participation
Whether termination violated timing rules (Rule 32) because disposition was delayed ~16 months	J.K.: disposition delayed beyond Rule 32(a) limits; violation of procedural timelines	DHHR/Court: delay occurred but J.K. failed to show any prejudice; she continued to receive services and did not take advantage of extra time	Affirmed — rule violation alone insufficient where no prejudice shown
Whether termination was in the children’s best interests	J.K.: argued further services/period might permit reunification	DHHR/Court: continued substance abuse, dishonesty, and inability/unwillingness to provide adequate care made termination necessary for children’s welfare	Affirmed — termination found in children’s best interests
Whether mother’s credibility and misconduct (forgery, false screens, unauthorized contacts) could justify denial of relief	J.K.: asserts treatment steps and denials of use	DHHR/Court: demonstrated pattern of deceit undermines credibility and rehabilitative prospects; credibility is for factfinder	Affirmed — trial court credibility findings upheld; dishonesty justified denial of improvement period

Key Cases Cited

In re Tiffany Marie S., 196 W. Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (standard of review for circuit court factual findings in bench trials)
In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (reiterating applicable standard of review)
In re M.M., 236 W. Va. 108, 778 S.E.2d 338 (circuit court discretion to grant improvement periods)
Michael D.C. v. Wanda L.C., 201 W. Va. 381, 497 S.E.2d 531 (credibility determinations lie with trier of fact)
In re Edward B., 210 W. Va. 621, 558 S.E.2d 620 (vacatur required where procedures/statutory process substantially disregarded)
In re Emily G., 224 W. Va. 390, 686 S.E.2d 41 (application of Edward B. standard)
State ex rel. S.W. v. Wilson, 243 W. Va. 515, 845 S.E.2d 290 (statutory and procedural timelines are mandatory; courts must follow statutory authority)
In re Carlita B., 185 W. Va. 613, 408 S.E.2d 365 (child abuse and neglect cases are high priority; delays harm children)
In re J.G., 240 W. Va. 194, 809 S.E.2d 453 (reaffirming need to avoid unjustified procedural delays)