In Re: S.P. and D.C., 16-0667

DHHR filed abuse-and-neglect petition (Sept. 2014) after parents arrived at hospital intoxicated, with reported domestic violence and petitioner’s suicidal ideation and wrist cutting. DHHR took emergency custody.
Petitioner (mother) stipulated to domestic violence and substance abuse at adjudication and received a post-adjudicatory improvement period; parents briefly regained custody while on alcohol monitoring (Jan–Apr 2015).
In June 2015 father was arrested for an incident involving alleged choking of mother; mother admitted being intoxicated but declined to cooperate with prosecution; children were removed again.
Petitioner had continuing mental-health crises (July 2015 suicide attempt) and inconsistent participation in services and visitation; she repeatedly denied domestic violence occurred when asked.
DHHR moved to terminate parental rights (Dec. 2015); after hearings and a short additional opportunity to comply, the circuit court terminated petitioner’s parental, custodial, and guardianship rights (May 11, 2016).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court erred by refusing to extend petitioner’s improvement period	L.C. substantially complied with services (mental-health treatment) and deserved more time	L.C. failed to substantially comply; continued substance abuse, domestic violence, and refusal to engage in case planning	Denial of extension affirmed — petitioner did not substantially comply
Whether court should have imposed a less-restrictive dispositional alternative instead of termination	Petitioner had strong bond with children; termination was unnecessarily restrictive	Conditions persisted; reunification not in children’s best interests; adoption planned	Termination affirmed — less-restrictive alternative not required given persistent conditions
Whether there was no reasonable likelihood petitioner could remedy conditions of abuse/neglect	Argued progress and bond showed potential for rehabilitation	Continued substance use, domestic violence, failure to follow case plan, and refusal to acknowledge issues showed low likelihood of remediation	Court correctly found no reasonable likelihood of remedying conditions; termination proper
Whether termination was contrary to children’s best interests	Petitioner argued bond favored reunification	DHHR and guardian argued stability in foster placement and unresolved safety risks made termination appropriate	Court found reunification not in children’s best interests and ordered termination; affirmed on appeal

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223 (1996) (standard of review for circuit-court findings in abuse-and-neglect bench trials)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89 (2011) (appellate review framework and deference to circuit court fact-findings in child-abuse proceedings)