In Re: S.B., 17-0659

DHHR filed abuse and neglect petition (Aug 2016) after both parents made false allegations of the other sexually abusing their child and were alleged chronic drug abusers; the child underwent unnecessary medical exams.
Petitioner (father) repeatedly failed to appear in early hearings, later stipulated at a December 2016 adjudicatory hearing to allegations that he exposed the child to drug abuse, an unstable relationship, unstable housing, and false sexual-abuse accusations that led to painful medical procedures.
Records included an overdose hospitalization where petitioner admitted using Percocet and snorting heroin but later denied heroin use and blamed others; a urine bottle for altering a drug screen was found in his vehicle.
Petitioner sought a post-adjudicatory improvement period (Jan 2017) and later a post-dispositional improvement period; at hearings he denied ongoing drug abuse, minimized need for services, and showed poor credibility and inconsistency about relationships and substance use.
The circuit court denied both improvement-period requests, found no reasonable likelihood petitioner could correct conditions in the near future, and terminated his parental rights (May 26, 2017); the child was placed for adoption. Petitioner appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether petitioner should have been granted a post-adjudicatory improvement period	D.B. argued he complied with court recommendations and was entitled to an improvement period	DHHR and guardian argued petitioner denied substance issues, lacked credibility, and was unlikely to participate meaningfully	Denied — court affirmed that petitioner failed to show by clear and convincing evidence he was likely to comply; denial within court discretion
Whether termination of parental rights was improper and a less-restrictive alternative should be imposed	D.B. argued termination was excessive and a less-restrictive disposition should have been used	DHHR and guardian argued petitioner failed to remedy underlying conditions, refused to acknowledge abuse, and termination was necessary for child’s welfare	Affirmed — court found no reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected and termination was required to protect child’s health, safety, and welfare

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (standard for appellate review of circuit court findings in bench trials)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (precedent cited for review standard)
In re M.M., 236 W.Va. 108, 778 S.E.2d 338 (2015) (circuit court discretion to grant improvement periods)
In re Katie S., 198 W.Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (1996) (court discretion regarding improvement periods)
In re Timber M., 231 W.Va. 44, 743 S.E.2d 352 (2013) (parent must acknowledge problems to make improvement period effective)
In re Charity H., 215 W.Va. 208, 599 S.E.2d 631 (2004) (failure to acknowledge abuse makes improvement period futile)