In Re: S.S., 17-0330

Petitioner Father (G.L.) had a prior abuse-and-neglect case, completed an improvement period, and was reunified with child S.S. in May 2016; prior concerns included inadequate housing at the paternal grandparents’ home.
In October 2016 Father left the child at the grandparents’ home while he traveled out of state despite DHHR warnings the home was unsuitable.
DHHR investigation found the grandparents’ home filthy and unsafe (missing windows/door, pervasive garbage and odor); the child had dirt on her person; DHHR removed the child and filed an abuse-and-neglect petition against Father.
At adjudication DHHR presented consistent testimony from multiple CPS workers and a relative about chronic unfitness of the home; Father presented no evidence and disputed the workers’ descriptions.
At disposition the court denied Father’s request for a post-adjudicatory or post-dispositional improvement period, finding he failed to accept responsibility despite prior services, and terminated his parental rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Father)	Defendant's Argument (DHHR)	Held
Probable cause for emergency removal / imminent danger	Removal was improper because child had been in home only ~24 hours, no actual injury, and DHHR didn’t make reasonable-prevention efforts	Home conditions (filth, odor, missing windows/door), child’s appearance, prior warnings and prior removals created imminent danger and justified emergency removal	Court affirmed removal: probable cause and imminent danger existed; emergency removal reasonable under facts
Sufficiency of evidence for adjudication of neglect	DHHR failed to corroborate testimony (no photos/notes); prior proceedings irrelevant; evidence insufficient	Multiple consistent witnesses (CPS workers, relative) established a pattern of unsuitable conditions and Father’s awareness	Court upheld adjudication: clear-and-convincing evidence supported neglect finding
Denial of post-adjudicatory / post-dispositional improvement period	Father acknowledged problems at disposition and sought services; court misread his statements	Father continued to deny/ minimize conditions and did not accept responsibility after prior services; improvement period would be futile	Court affirmed denial: Father failed to acknowledge the problem, so improvement period inappropriate

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (W.Va. 1996) (standard of review for circuit court findings in bench-tried abuse/neglect cases)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (W.Va. 2011) (application of standard of review)
In Interest of S.C., 168 W.Va. 366, 284 S.E.2d 867 (W.Va. 1981) (burden of proof for abuse/neglect—clear and convincing evidence)
In re Joseph A., 199 W.Va. 438, 485 S.E.2d 176 (W.Va. 1997) (evidentiary requirements and burden discussion)
In re Timber M., 231 W.Va. 44, 743 S.E.2d 352 (W.Va. 2013) (acknowledgment of problem necessary for improvement period)
In re Charity H., 215 W.Va. 208, 599 S.E.2d 631 (W.Va. 2004) (same: failure to acknowledge abuse/neglect makes improvement futile)